Myanmar jets drop bombs near India border; refugee influx continues

New Delhi, Apr 6: President Droupadi Murmu on Saturday gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was passed by Parliament earlier this week.

Murmu also gave her assent to the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2025.

"The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the president on April 5, 2025, and is hereby published for general information: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025," the government said in a notification.

Parliament early on Friday approved the Bill after the Rajya Sabha gave its nod to the contentious legislation following an over 13-hour debate.

The discussion witnessed staunch objections from opposition parties, which termed the Bill "anti-Muslim" as well as "unconstitutional", while the government responded that the "historic reform" would benefit the minority community.

The Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha with 128 members voting in favour and 95 opposing it.

It was passed in the Lok Sabha early on Thursday, with 288 members supporting it and 232 against it.

Parliament had also approved the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, with the Rajya Sabha giving its nod. The Lok Sabha had already given its assent to the Bill.

After the president gave her assent, it has also become a law.

Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president Asaduddin Owaisi on Friday challenged the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in the Supreme Court, saying it violated constitutional provisions. 

Jawed's plea alleged the Bill imposed "arbitrary restrictions" on Waqf properties and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
The petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, said it discriminated against the Muslim community by "imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments".

Jawed, the Lok Sabha MP from Kishanganj in Bihar, was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Bill and alleged in his plea that it "introduces restrictions on the creation of Waqfs based on the duration of one's religious practice".

In his separate plea, Owaisi said the Bill took away from Waqfs various protections accorded to Waqfs and Hindu, Jain and Sikh religious and charitable endowments alike.

Owaisi's plea, filed by advocate Lzafeer Ahmad, said, "This diminishing of the protection given to Waqfs while retaining them for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constitutes hostile discrimination against Muslims and is violative of articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion."

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of certain parts of the contentious Waqf law, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf boards and council, till the next date of hearing on May 5. The Chief Justice-led bench also said that the 'waqf by user' provision should not be denotified till then.

The Centre assured the Supreme Court that no appointments would be made to Waqf boards. The new law tweaks the composition of Waqf boards, making it compulsory to include non-Muslims as its members.

"SG (Tushar) Mehta assured that till the next date, no appointment shall take place to board and councils under the 2025 Act. He also assures that the status of waqfs, including waqf by user, already declared by notification or gazetted, shall not be changed," the court said in its order.

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought 7-days' time to file a response. The court allowed the petitioners to file their rejoinder within five days after that.

Details awaited.

Bengaluru: The leaked contents of Karnataka’s long-awaited caste census suggest a significant policy shift—extending the creamy layer rule to Category 1 castes under the backward classes reservation list. This category includes some of the most disadvantaged nomadic and microscopic communities.

The commission, headed by Jayaprakash Hegde, has reportedly recommended that the creamy layer policy—already applied to categories 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B—be extended to Category 1. The report notes that some groups within Category 1 have achieved considerable progress socially, economically, educationally, and politically, thus justifying the introduction of a filtering mechanism.

The panel emphasized the growing inequality within Category 1 itself, stating that children from impoverished farming and labourer families are unable to compete with the children of wealthier households in the same category.

“The competition is stiff here and there is a threat that this category may become one populated by the rich in due course if the creamy layer policy is not implemented,” the report reportedly states.

It further underlines that to fulfil the constitutional goal of equitable opportunities, the policy must be introduced across all categories of backward classes, including Category 1.