The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to consider a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay challenging the Waqf Act, 1995, Live Law reported.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said that the constitutionality of a law cannot be challenged through an “abstract petition”.

A waqf is a property given for a religious, educational or charitable cause by Muslims. In India, waqfs are governed under the Waqf Act, 1995. Each state has a Waqf Board led by a legal entity, who is vested with the power to acquire, hold and transfer a property.

Upadhyay, in his petition, had said that a separate law to deal with waqfs alone cannot be enacted, Live Law reported. He also said that the law “violates the right to equality and right to religion”, NDTV reported.

The bench asked Upadhyay if his property had been appropriated because of the Waqf Act, The Hindu reported. “How are you aggrieved by the law?” the bench asked. “Were you evicted from your property? Was your trust property wound up?”

Arguing further, Upadhyay said that the public had suffered because of the special status given to waqf properties.

“The Waqf Board, which has MLA, MP, IAS officer, town planner, advocate, scholar and mutawallis [trustees of waqfs] all from the Muslim community, are paid from the public exchequer, though the Centre doesn’t collect even one rupee from any mosque,” Upadhyay, according to Deccan Herald.

He added that there were no similar provisions for Hindus even though state governments collected Rs 1 crore to Rs 4 crore from temples. “Hence, it is brazenly in violation of the Constitution and the principle of secularism,” he added.

He asked the court to enact a uniform code instead to manage trusts, charitable institutions and religious endowments of all the communities.

The bench said it could not ask Parliament to make a uniform law.

“We have to be very careful while entertaining a PIL challenging a law enacted by the legislature,” the court said, The Hindu reported. “If the PIL is on environment or education, we can entertain.”

Upadhyay then sought to withdraw the petition.