Supreme Court Hearing on Waqf Act 2025: Non-Muslims' Inclusion in Board Raises Concerns

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing petitions challenging the Waqf Act 2025. The very first day witnessed an intense debate. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan, is presiding over the case. During the proceedings, the Central Government argued that a limited number of non-Muslims could be appointed to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. However, the Chief Justice raised an important question—can Muslims then be appointed to governing bodies of Hindu religious institutions based on similar logic?

“Can Muslims Manage Hindu Institutions Too?” – CJI Asks

CJI Khanna directly questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, asking, “Are you suggesting that minorities should be included in the boards managing Hindu temples and religious trusts?” He further clarified that comparing religious administrative bodies to judicial benches is inappropriate, as judges do not operate based on religious identity.

“Then This Bench Shouldn’t Hear the Case?” – SG Mehta

Solicitor General Mehta argued that if objections to non-Muslims being part of the Waqf Board are valid, then the same reasoning could imply that this current bench, composed of non-Muslim judges, may also be disqualified from hearing the matter. The CJI promptly responded, “We rise above religion when we sit on this bench. We are completely secular and fair to both sides.”

“If It's Advisory, Why Not Muslim Majority?” – Supreme Court

When Mehta explained that the Waqf Council is merely an advisory body, the Chief Justice asked why it should not consist primarily of Muslims if that is its nature. Mehta referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s report, which specified that apart from ex-officio members, no more than two non-Muslims would be appointed out of a total of 22 members.

Court Indicates Deeper Constitutional Issues Involved

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial neutrality cannot be equated with representation in religious governance bodies. The court hinted that the case involves not just legal interpretation, but also delicate constitutional and religious considerations. More detailed arguments are expected in the upcoming hearings.