Background: What is a Waqf and Why the Law Was Amended
A waqf is a permanent charitable endowment under Islamic practices, which majorly involves immovable property dedicated to religious, madrasa, or public welfare purposes. And such donated properties of the various individuals are regulated by the Waqf board under the Waqf Act, 1995.
In 2025, the Parliament observed that there were many lacunae in this particular act, which had to be amended in order to ensure the public welfare at large. The parliament passed the Waqf (Amendment) Act to improve transparency, prevent misuse of waqf properties, increase the representation of women in the Waqf board and streamline dispute resolution for the greater good. While the government argued that the amendments would modernise waqf management and counter the various lapses in the previous act, several petitions were filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the provisions. Petitioners alleged that some changes violated Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom of religion), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution, and are resulting in the arbitrary exercise of power by executive authorities, which is clearly against natural justice.
Supreme Court’s Interim Order
On 14 September 2025, a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih issued an interim order wherein it stayed certain provisions of the amendment. The Court clarified that it was not suspending the entire Act, rather only those provisions that could lead to irreversible harm if implemented before a final decision. The judgment of which is still to be held by the Hon’ble court.
Key Provisions Stayed
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, which required a person to have practised Islam for at least five years before being allowed to create a waqf. The Hon’ble Court stayed this particular provision, stating the absence of a clear mechanism to verify this particular criterion. It was also observed by the court of law that such a condition could arbitrarily deprive individuals of their right to create a waqf until proper rules are framed by State Governments.
Sections 3C(2), 3C(3), and 3C(4) empowered the District Collector(IAS) to decide whether land belongs to the government, amend revenue records, and derecognise the various waqf properties claimed by the waqf board. The Court stayed these provisions, holding that these matters of title-related disputes must be rested with the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and not the executive officers. The court also directed the authorities that no third-party rights be created over such lands(Under the waqf board) until a Tribunal or court gives a final decision on the same.
The Hon'ble Court further ruled that the non-Muslim representation in waqf board governance must be limited, as these are religious aspects that can’t be hindered due to the secular aspect of the Republic of India, that is Bharat. Therefore the Hon’ble court capped the participartion of non-Muslim membership at four out of twenty-two in the Central Waqf Council and three out of eleven in State Waqf Boards.
Provisions Still in Force
The Hon’ble Court refused to put a stay on other provisions, which include mandatory registration of waqf properties, removal of “waqf by user,” and the prohibition on creating waqfs over protected monuments or in Scheduled Areas. It also left intact the clause allowing the appointment of non-Muslims as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of State Waqf Boards, though it recommended appointing Muslims where possible to respect the religious character of these institutions.
Constitutional and Policy Significance
This interim order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the country is a crucial reminder that legislative reforms must respect constitutional aspects and shouldn’t try to supersede the same. The Hon’ble court has put forth this stance clearly, by pausing only those provisions that risk arbitrary application while allowing other reforms to operate, thereby balancing both governmental objectives with the protection of minority rights of the country.
The ruling underscores the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers, ensuring that property disputes remain under judicial oversight. Furthermore, it also safeguards religious freedoms under Article 25, equality under Article 14, and property rights under Article 300A.
What next?
The matter will now proceed to a detailed hearing where the Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of the contested provisions. Until then, the stay order shields waqf creators, boards, and beneficiaries, reinforcing the Court’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights.
Reference
