Actor Vijay Takes Legal Action in Supreme Court Against Waqf Act 2025, Terms It Unjust.

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president and actor Vijay has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, contesting the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, adding to a growing wave of legal opposition against the freshly enacted legislation.

The Act has ignited controversy, with various petitions lodged in the Supreme Court claiming that it discriminates against the Muslim community and infringes upon their fundamental rights. Vijay’s petition contributes to this escalating list of challenges against the statute.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 was ratified by the Lok Sabha after an extensive debate, with 288 members voting in favor and 232 against. It received approval from the Rajya Sabha on April 4, with a tally of 128 votes in favor and 95 against.
President Droupadi Murmu granted her approval on April 5, making it law. The Act aims to enhance the management of waqf properties, empower stakeholders, improve survey and registration processes, and facilitate the development of these properties.
Numerous prominent individuals and organizations have also approached the Supreme Court challenging the Act. Notables include AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MPs Mohammad Jawed and Imran Pratapgarhi, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Azad Samaj Party leader Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Samajwadi Party MP Zia Ur Rehman Barq.

Other challengers include Maulana Arshad Madani from Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, the Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, the Social Democratic Party of India, the Indian Union Muslim League, and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights.

Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, DMK, represented by MP A Raja, and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) have also submitted petitions. Moreover, RJD MPs Manoj Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, along with RJD MLA Muhammad Izhar Asfi, have opposed the Act, asserting it “enables extensive government interference in Muslim religious endowments.”

The AIMPLB has vehemently criticized the legislation, stating its objections stem from the amendments being “arbitrary, discriminatory, and exclusionary.” Petitioners collectively argue that the Act violates constitutional rights and unfairly targets the Muslim community.

Conversely, intervention applications supporting the Act have been filed. These argue that the amendments are consistent with the Constitution of India and do not infringe upon the rights of the Muslim community.

(With input from agencies)