In a major challenge to the recently passed Waqf Amendment Act, several senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Rajeev Dhawan, and Huzefa Ahmadi argued before the Supreme Court that the law infringes upon the fundamental character of Waqf as a Muslim endowment. Representing multiple petitioners, Kapil Sibal strongly opposed the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf bodies, warning that such a move risks turning Muslims into a minority in their own institutions. Sibal emphasized that Waqf is not a secular trust but a religious dedication by Muslims to God, and the new 22-member Central Waqf Council structure compromises Muslim control by allowing significant non-Muslim representation.

Chief Justice BR Gavai, leading the bench, questioned this interpretation, citing Bodh Gaya as an example of shared religious space. Sibal responded that while places of worship may overlap, the fundamental nature of Waqf remains uniquely Islamic. Adding to the critique, Abhishek Singhvi condemned the bureaucratic hurdles introduced by the new law, arguing it could indefinitely delay property registration and inflict fear among Muslim contributors. He asked, “Which religious endowment asks for proof of faith? Must someone prove they’ve practiced religion for five years just to register a Waqf property?”

Rajeev Dhawan warned the court that the Act represents the first attempt to redefine religion within a religious statute, calling it an attack on secularism. He cited a Sikh petitioner who wants to contribute to Waqf without losing property rights. Huzefa Ahmadi raised further concerns on the criteria for identifying a practising Muslim, questioning the basis—such as prayer habits or personal behavior—for eligibility. Although Chief Justice Gavai noted that Parliament-approved laws carry a presumption of constitutionality, the hearing remains ongoing. The petitioners seek to overturn provisions they argue marginalize Muslims and endanger religious freedom.