Mumbai, Apr 10 (Reporter) In first challenge to Unified Management Empowerment Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act, 2025 after it came into force on April eight, a Mumbai resident Muhammed Jameel Merchant has moved the Supreme Court. This is the first petition from Mumbai challenging the new law. Last week, the Parliament had passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which amended the Waqf Act, 1995, after which President Droupadi Murmu gave ascent to the UMEED Act, which has now been notified by the Narendra Modi-led NDA government at the Centre. Merchant has made Union of India as a respondent, through Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Minority Affairs and Ministry of Law & Justice. Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, along with Adv Burhan Bukhari, is representing the petitioner. The petition demands that the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 be declared as unconstitutional; and / or pass order that the Supreme Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has referred to the K S Puttaswamy versus Union of India case. “The amending Act creates a situation where to determine the validity of a Waqf, courts may have to heavily scrutinise and record evidence on personal aspects of the life of a settlor, including whether he prayed, fasted, performed pilgrimages or not,” the petitioner said. “The amendment Act provides that while 10 members must mandatorily be Muslims, the remaining 11 may be chosen from any community. Similarly, Section 14 read with Section 16(a) of the unamended Act required all members of the Waqf Boards to be Muslims. The amended Act provides with respect to Waqf Boards of States and Delhi that only four members have to be mandatorily Muslim while seven may be chosen from any community. Even the requirement that the Board CEO be a Muslim has been done away with. Thus, there may be a situation where the Waqf Board is controlled by non-Muslim members with an unassailable majority led by a non-Muslim chairman and a non-Muslim CEO as Secretary,” the petitioner said pointing out that Muslim members may be reduced to a minority with no effective voice in the administration of their community’s religious and charitable trust. “That Section 21 of the Amendment Act which substitutes Section 36(7) is void. The unamended Section 36(7) stated that an application for registration of a Waqf should be inquired into by the Board for checking genuineness and correctness of particulars. The amended subsection gives the power to the Collector. The petitioner submits that the provision is not in consonance with the scheme of the Act and far from streamlining the management of waqf properties creates parallel power centres which will lead to delay and confusion,” it points out...////...