Supreme Court Verdict on Waqf Amendment Act 2025 Amid Corruption, Threat Claims

Source: Law Street Journal

Ever since petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the entire nation has been fixated on one question: What will the court decide? Will the constitutional validity of this new law stand the test of judicial scrutiny? And will it truly streamline the management of Waqf properties—or are there deeper, hidden motives at play? The legal fraternity and the public alike are waiting anxiously for an order from Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud.

But even before the verdict, a development has emerged that is not only shocking but deeply unsettling. Reports have surfaced suggesting fresh allegations of irregularities within Waqf Boards, particularly involving the Delhi Waqf Board and Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan.

The Corruption Allegations Against Delhi Waqf Board

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have both intensified their probes into alleged corruption by Khan during his tenure as Chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board. Recently, the CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet that introduces new evidence, sending ripples through political and legal circles.

According to the chargesheet, Khan allegedly abused his official position, orchestrating a network of illegal appointments within the Waqf Board. Relatives and close associates were reportedly appointed to contractual and daily wage positions without adhering to due process. The CBI claims that a total of 41 individuals were appointed, out of which advertisements were issued for only 22 posts. The remaining appointments were made without any official selection process, causing a financial loss of approximately ₹27.2 lakh to the Board.

The CBI also alleges that Khan appointed Mahboob Alam as CEO of the Board and later issued advertisements in Urdu newspapers on April 24, 2016, to retroactively legitimize these appointments—a move seen as mere window-dressing.

Khan has already been named as a primary accused in the main chargesheet filed in August 2022, along with ten others. The latest supplementary chargesheet adds fresh angles and deeper corruption links to the case.

In response, Amanatullah Khan has dismissed the allegations as “baseless” and politically motivated, stating:

“CBI has no evidence against me. This latest document is a farce and part of a political vendetta.”

ED Probe: Money Laundering Trail and Real Estate Links

The Enforcement Directorate has also filed a separate chargesheet under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in January 2024. The ED alleges that Khan invested illicit cash, earned through corruption, into real estate assets. One cited example includes a property in Jamia Nagar measuring 10 square yards, reportedly valued at around ₹36 crore, for which Khan allegedly made substantial payments in cash.

These revelations raise critical questions: Is the Waqf Amendment Act truly about ensuring transparency and governance—or is the resistance to the Act motivated by fears of exposing past irregularities?

Petitioner Alleges Threats and Surveillance

While these legal battles rage on, a disturbing report has come from Mumbai. Jarmil Merchant, one of the petitioners challenging the Waqf Amendment Act in the Supreme Court, lodged a complaint at the Malvani Police Station, alleging surveillance and intimidation.

Merchant claims that unidentified individuals have been following him, monitoring his residence and office, and increasing their suspicious activities, particularly at night. In his written complaint, he stated:

“I have serious apprehension that my life is in danger and someone may be plotting to trap me in a false or fabricated case.”

He further alleged that these acts appear to be part of a coordinated effort to intimidate him, adding that he is willing to provide CCTV footage to substantiate his claims. The police have acknowledged receipt of the complaint and are verifying the facts.

This incident has added a new layer of sensitivity to the Waqf Amendment Act controversy. In a democratic society, if individuals who exercise their constitutional right to approach the courts feel unsafe, it raises serious concerns—not only about personal security but also about the integrity of the judicial process.

The Bigger Picture: Democracy and Accountability at Stake

The Centre notified the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, on April 5, 2025, after receiving presidential assent. The government’s stated objective was to modernize Waqf property management, streamline governance, and curb irregularities.

However, the unfolding events—corruption allegations against Waqf Board officials, money laundering trails, and reports of threats to petitioners—suggest that the debate over the Act is not merely legal or political. It is a test of India’s democratic values.

If filing a petition necessitates police protection, it signals a troubling reality for the rule of law. Moreover, Waqf properties—intended primarily for charitable and religious welfare—being misused for personal enrichment or political patronage underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms.

But reforms must not become a pretext for suppressing dissent or criticism. Otherwise, what is projected as governance modernization risks morphing into authoritarian overreach.

Awaiting Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court’s ruling will be pivotal—not just on the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act but also as a statement on judicial independence and accountability in India. Will the court uphold the law in its entirety, strike down contentious provisions, or call for a broader framework to ensure transparency and prevent misuse?

Until then, public trust hinges on the judiciary’s impartiality. Ironically, an Act intended to strengthen governance has sparked the most fundamental questions about governance itself.

What do you think? Is the Waqf Amendment Act a step toward reform—or a smokescreen for deeper political agendas? Share your views in the comments below.