Question of Faith?

The debates in the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 have revealed the disturbing depths to which state policy may sink when guided more by majoritarian muscle than by constitutional morality.

- 

Petitioners put forth a very fundamental question—whether the State can redefine the religious significance of an institution that a community considers sacred, and in doing so, dilute their constitutional right to religious freedom and self-governance? Waqf—an Islamic endowment dedicated to Muslim divine for charitable and spiritual purposes—is by no means a peripheral practice. As senior advocate Kapil Sibal aptly told the Court, it is perhaps a religious obligation tied to the very soul of Islam, which is deeply connected to the believer's preparation for the afterlife. The government's argument that waqf is not an "essential religious practice" under Article 25 is both legally tenuous and spiritually intrusive. Essentiality, as Justice DY Chandrachud once said, should not become a tool for the State to sit in theological judgment.