In early 2025, as the Waqf Amendment Bill threatened to alter the very architecture of Waqf administration in India, I recognised the grave constitutional and socioreligious implications it carried — not merely for the Muslim community but for the pluralistic fabric of the nation. The Bill’s provisions, in my considered view, risked eroding minority rights, undermining the independence of religious endowments, and creating precedents detrimental to the constitutional balance of Articles 14, 25, 26, and 30.

​

With a deep sense of duty rooted in my faith and in the constitutional oath that every citizen carries in their heart, I personally moved the Supreme Court of India by filing a substantive petition challenging the Bill’s validity. This was not an act of token protest — it was a meticulously crafted legal intervention grounded in constitutional law, minority rights jurisprudence, and international covenants to which India is a signatory.

​

My petition laid out:

• Constitutional Violations – How the Bill contravened fundamental rights and weakened the judicially protected autonomy of Waqf Boards.

• Federal Concerns – How certain provisions encroached upon the legislative domain of the States, threatening India’s federal structure.

• International Commitments – How the amendments conflicted with India’s obligations under global human rights and cultural heritage conventions.

• Communal Harmony – How undermining Waqf autonomy risked igniting unnecessary communal tensions, contrary to the nation’s peace and development goals.

​

After an intense preliminary hearing, the Apex Court, in recognition of the gravity of the issues raised, granted interim relief, effectively halting the operation of the most contentious provisions until a final adjudication. This relief was a landmark pause in what many saw as a fastmoving legislative overreach, and it was directly the outcome of my petition and advocacy.
 

The significance of this interim relief extends beyond the immediate stay:

• It upheld the principle of constitutional review over parliamentary action.

• It affirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding minority rights.

• It gave breathing space for broader public debate and stakeholder consultation.

​

Beyond the legal corridors, my role evolved into a diplomatic bridge between various stakeholders — scholars, community leaders, NGOs, and even policy advisors — to ensure that the discourse remained constructive and rooted in constitutionalism, not reactionary rhetoric. I engaged in quiet diplomacy to present the concerns to international observers without allowing the matter to be hijacked for partisan purposes.

​

In essence, this episode was not merely a legal battle — it was a demonstration that one determined citizen, armed with legal acumen and moral conviction, can invoke the Supreme Court’s conscience to protect the constitutional spirit of India.

​

The fight is far from over, but this interim relief is a testament to what informed, principled, and courageous action can achieve. As the matter progresses, I remain committed to ensuring that our nation’s commitment to justice, equality, and religious freedom is preserved for future generations.