SC Pauses Key Parts of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Entire Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Pauses Key Provisions

Top Court Says Law Presumed Constitutional; Stays Sections on 5-Year Muslim Practice Rule and Collector’s Powers

Interim Order Protects Waqf Properties During Disputes, Limits Non-Muslim Representation in Waqf Bodies

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 15, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has refused to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety, but has paused the operation of several key provisions after finding they could lead to arbitrary or unconstitutional outcomes.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a law passed by Parliament, and that staying an entire statute is an extraordinary measure reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases.

“We have found that the case was not made out to stay the entire statute,” the bench observed, while clarifying that petitioners are free to mount a comprehensive challenge to the law at a later stage.

Background: Why the Law Was Challenged

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 introduced sweeping changes to the regulation of waqf properties — assets dedicated for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.

Petitioners, including Members of Parliament, waqf boards, and community organisations, argued that the amendments:

• Undermine the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing waqf assets.
• Allow excessive government control over religious endowments.
• Violate fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26 (freedom of religion) and Article 300A (right to property).

The government defended the law as a necessary reform to curb “rampant encroachment” and misuse of waqf properties, and to ensure transparency in their management.

Provisions Stayed by the Supreme Court

The Court stayed the following sections pending further hearing:

1. Section 3 — 5-Year Muslim Practice Requirement

• What it said: Only a person who had been practising Islam for at least five years could create a waqf.
• Why stayed: The Court said there was no mechanism or rules to verify such a claim, which could lead to arbitrary decisions.
• Impact: Until rules are framed, this requirement will not apply.

2. Section 3C (2) — Loss of Waqf Status During Dispute

• What it said: If a waqf property was under dispute and being investigated by a designated government officer, it would lose its waqf status until the officer’s report was submitted.
• Why stayed: The Court said this could allow encroachers to freeze waqf status by simply initiating a dispute.

3. Section 3C (4) — Collector’s Adjudicatory Powers

• What it said: Allowed a district Collector to decide whether a property declared as waqf was actually government property.
• Why stayed: The Court held that executive officers cannot decide citizens’ property rights, as this violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

4. Sections 9, 14, 23 — Composition of Waqf Bodies

• What it said: Allowed inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.
• Court’s direction: 
  • Central Waqf Council: No more than 4 non-Muslims out of 20 members.
  • State Waqf Boards: No more than 3 non-Muslims.
  • Chief Executive Officers of waqf boards should preferably be Muslim.

Provisions Not Stayed

The Court did not stay the mandatory registration of waqfs, noting that such a requirement had existed between 1995 and 2013. Petitioners had argued that many historic waqfs lacked documentation and could be invalidated, but the Court said unregistered waqfs could still register themselves.

Court’s Protective Directions for Waqf Properties

The bench issued interim safeguards to prevent misuse during disputes:

• No change in the status or possession of waqf property under enquiry until a competent tribunal decides the title.
• No changes in revenue or court records during the dispute.
• No creation of third-party rights until the matter is resolved.

Arguments in Court

Petitioners’ Stand

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi argued:

• No other religious endowment laws (Hindu or Sikh) allow members of other faiths to manage temples or gurdwaras.
• The amendments amount to a “creeping acquisition” of Muslim properties.
• The law imposes arbitrary restrictions on waqf management, undermining religious freedom.

Government’s Defence

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered:

• Waqf by user was a statutory creation, not an essential religious practice, and can be altered by legislation.
• Charity, including waqf, is not an essential religious practice under Islam.
• State regulation of secular aspects of religion, including property management, is permitted under the Constitution.

Why This Interim Order Matters

This ruling strikes a balance between legislative authority and constitutional safeguards:

• It upholds the presumption of constitutionality for laws passed by Parliament.
• It prevents potential misuse of certain provisions that could harm waqf properties or community rights.
• It sets clear limits on executive powers in religious property disputes.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court will hear the full constitutional challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the coming months. Until then:

• Stayed provisions remain suspended.
• Other parts of the law remain in force.
• States and the Centre may need to frame rules and mechanisms to address the Court’s concerns.

EXPLAINER:

Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 vs Supreme Court Interim Order

 

10 Questions About the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 — Answered

1. What is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?

It’s a new law passed by Parliament to change how waqf properties — assets dedicated for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law — are managed, registered, and protected.

2. Why was it challenged in the Supreme Court?

Petitioners argued it gives the government too much control over waqf properties, undermines community autonomy, and violates constitutional rights to religious freedom and property.

3. Did the Supreme Court strike down the law?

No. The Court refused to stay the entire Act, saying laws are presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise. However, it paused certain provisions that could cause harm if implemented immediately.

4. Which provisions were stayed?

• 5-year Muslim practice rule for creating a waqf.
• Loss of waqf status during property disputes.
• Collector’s power to decide if waqf land is government property.
• Unlimited non-Muslim representation in waqf bodies (now capped).

5. Why was the 5-year rule stayed?

The Court said there’s no clear way to verify if someone has practised Islam for five years, making the rule prone to arbitrary decisions.

6. What about the Collector’s powers?

The Court ruled that property rights must be decided by courts or tribunals, not by executive officers like district Collectors.

7. What changes were made to waqf body composition?

• Central Waqf Council: Max 4 non-Muslims out of 20 members.
• State Waqf Boards: Max 3 non-Muslims.
• CEOs should preferably be Muslim.

8. Is waqf registration now compulsory?

Yes. The Court did not stay this requirement, noting it existed earlier and unregistered waqfs can still register.

9. How will waqf properties be protected during disputes?

The Court ordered that no changes in possession, records, or third-party rights can be made until a tribunal decides the matter.

10. What happens next?

The Court will hear the full constitutional challenge in the coming months. Stayed provisions remain suspended; the rest of the law is in force.

ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES

SC: Must Record Reasons for Warrantless Searches

Supreme Court Orders Fresh ₹5,000 Crore Payout from SEBI-Sahara Fund, Extends Deadline for Depositor Refunds to December 2026

Supreme Court Declares Housing a Fundamental Right, Urges Centre to Create Revival Fund for Stalled Real Estate Projects

Paying for Daughter’s Marriage is a Father’s Duty, Orders ₹10 Lakh Contribution Despite Divorce

Supreme Court Orders All Bail Pleas to Be Decided Within Two Months to Protect Personal Liberty

Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If Even One Relief Is Maintainable

SC Orders SIT with Hindu-Muslim Officers to Probe 2023 Akola Clashes

Supreme Court Acquits Uttarakhand Doctor Under Right of Private Defence

Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence in POCSO Case, Clarifies ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

Supreme Court Refuses Plea to Cancel India-Pakistan Asia Cup 2025 Match