Waqf is an Islamic concept but not an essential part of the faith, the Union government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, reported Live Law.

The statement came in response to a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, told a bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih that waqf boards discharged secular functions and hence, the inclusion of non-Muslims in them was permissible.

The bench adjourned the matter till Thursday after hearing arguments for more than three hours. No interim order was passed.

A waqf is an endowment under Islamic law dedicated to a religious, educational or charitable cause. Each state has a waqf board led by a legal entity vested with the power to acquire, hold and transfer property.

“Charity is part of every religion,” Bar and Bench quoted Mehta as saying. “It is part of Christianity also, but the Supreme Court says it is not an essential part…Hindus have a system of daan [charity], Sikhs also have…but it is not an essential part.”

Stating that the functions of the waqf boards were “purely secular”, the solicitor general added: “Having a maximum of two non-Muslim members – would it change any character? Waqf board is not touching upon any religious activity of any of the waqf.”

The court has been hearing a set of petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, which critics say discriminates against Muslims and interferes with waqf property management. The Centre has defended the law, saying it aims to prevent misuse of waqf provisions to encroach on public and private land.

The 2024 Waqf Amendment Bill proposed amendments to 44 sections of the 1995 Waqf Act, including allowing non-Muslims on waqf boards, restricting property donations and changing how waqf tribunals function. The bill was cleared by Parliament on April 4. It received presidential assent on April 5 and took effect on April 8.

The Congress and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, among others, have challenged the constitutionality of the bill in the Supreme Court.

An argument made by the petitioners against the Act was that Muslims must not be discriminated against by allowing non-Muslims in waqf boards when non-Hindus were not allowed in Hindu endowment boards.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Mehta said that the Hindu endowment dealt with only religious activity while the waqf deals with secular activities.

“Hindu endowment activities are very pervasive,” Bar and Bench quoted the solicitor general as saying. “It is under serious challenge. Hindu endowment commissioner can go inside temple. Pujari [temple priest] is decided by the state government. Waqf board do not touch upon religious activity at all.”

Mehta stated that many of the petitions against the Act were in the nature of public interest litigation and not filed by affected persons, according to Bar and Bench.

“The question is whether Parliament has legislative competence is not a question at all,” he told the court. “It is my case that few petitioners cannot claim to represent the entire Muslim community. We received 96 lakh representations. The joint parliamentary committee [on the bill] had 36 sittings.”

In April, the court proposed to stay some provisions of the act, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards and the denotification of properties declared as waqf by courts.