SC questions inclusion of non-muslims in Waqf Board, sparks heated debate

The Supreme Court on Wednesday engaged in a sharp exchange with the Centre while hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A key point of contention was the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf board, which petitioners argue infringes upon the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious affairs.  

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna raised a pointed question to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, asking, “Are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.” The remark came amid discussions on religious representation and autonomy in religious institutional management.  

The bench, comprising CJI Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan, expressed concern that if non-Muslims were being appointed to the Waqf Board, the same logic should apply across religious boards. CJI Khanna noted that the current Waqf Board includes eight Muslim members and possibly only two non-Muslim members, adding, “Why not have non-Muslims also in the advisory board of Hindu endowments then?”  

Solicitor General Mehta responded by suggesting that if religious identity was the issue, then even the bench couldn’t hear the matter — a remark that was immediately rebuked by the Chief Justice. “What! When we sit over here, we lose our religion. For us both sides are the same. How can you compare it with the judges?” CJI Khanna retorted firmly.  

Justice Viswanathan added that there were specific functional aspects to managing religious spaces — like the structure and layout of mosques — that might require familiarity, implying that religious background could be relevant in certain advisory capacities. However, the Solicitor General argued that such assessments could be done by the Charity Commissioner regardless of religion.  

The Supreme Court is currently hearing multiple petitions on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, with arguments centered on constitutional rights, religious autonomy, and administrative fairness. The hearing will continue on Thursday as the three-judge bench delves deeper into the implications of the law and the scope of state interference in religious institutions.