Lakshadweep MP and Congress leader Advocate Hamdullah Sayeed has moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3E of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which prohibits Muslim members of Scheduled Tribes from declaring their land as Waqf, arguing that it violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 29, and their constitutional right under Article 300A.
The petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, argues that three specific sections of the amended law infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Muslim community, including those from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with the MP being one of them.
The MP submitted that the Impugned Provision, though ostensibly enacted to safeguard tribal land, “imposes an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of Muslim members of a Schedule Tribe.”
Describing the Provision as “narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest,” the petitioner argued that less restrictive and more proportionate measures could have achieved the same objective without entirely extinguishing a core religious practice.
“Many tribes under the Fifth Schedule areas like Bakkarwals in Jammu and Kashmir and the Nat Community found across North India have members professing Islam as their religion. Even in the Sixth Schedule areas one finds members of Schedule Tribe professing and following Islam as a religion,” read the petition.
They alleged that the provision “breeds bias” by arbitrarily excluding Scheduled Tribe members who profess Islam from exercising an essential religious and charitable obligation, while allowing non-tribal Muslims to do so, thereby forcing tribal Muslims to choose between their religious and tribal identities.
The plea argued that “such differential treatment amounts to a violation of Articles 14 and 15, rendering it impermissible under the doctrine of unreasonable classification and arbitrariness,” and also infringes upon the right “to freely profess and practice their religion as guaranteed under Article 25.”
The petition further challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety.
”It also violates the right to manage properties of a religious denomination as provided under Article 26. Further, the impugned provision places a disproportionate burden on members of Scheduled Tribes who may convert to Islam by depriving them of their right to dedicate their property thereby indirectly penalising conversion and barring institutions involved in management of Waqf properties from receiving land from members of Scheduled Tribes,” the plea further argued.
The petition criticised the enhanced role of State authorities in Waqf administration, arguing that the Act transfers key functions, such as determining the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the District Collector, thereby impinging on the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious institutions.
They pointed out that the shift in control from religious bodies to government officials undermines the autonomy of Waqf management, contravenes Article 26(d) of the Constitution, and runs counter to settled law, as laid down in Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412.
“Further, these amendments also undermine property rights protected under Article 300A. By expanding State control over Waqf assets, limiting the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes, and subjecting Waqf properties to heightened scrutiny, the Act goes against this Hon’ble Court’s decision in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, (1954) 1 SCC 487 wherein it was held that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights,” asserted the MP.
This legal challenge, which adds to several petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, is particularly significant as it is filed by a parliamentarian from Lakshadweep- a region potentially adversely impacted by the law.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is likely to hear a batch of petitions on Wednesday, including those from Congress, AIMIM, IUML, DMK, CPI, CPIM, Aam Aadmi Party, YSRCP, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam chief actor Vijay, and organizations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and APCR challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Six BJP-ruled states are expected to defend the law.
 Act, 2025, which prohibits Muslim members of Scheduled Tribes from declaring their land as Waqf, arguing that it violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 29, and their constitutional right under Article 300A.){kind=link}