TeaHe refused to suspend the Supreme Court on September 15, 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (2025 Act) in its entirety, but Operation stopped Some controversial provisions have more judicial inquiry pending. The interim order, led by India’s Chief Justice Bra Gavai and Justice AG Masih, was given by a bench, the enforcement of the provisions, which unilaterally empowers the district collectors to decide whether a property was claimed that the Waqf government was, and only a valid asset owner who is practicing a valid asset owner who was practicing Islam for at least five years. It also capted the number of non-Muslims that can be appointed to the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board.
What was the challenge?
The Waqf, under the Islamic law, refers to a charitable settlement through which the property is dedicated to religious or philanthropic purposes. 2025 law, notified in April As an amendment for Waqf Act of 1995 (1995 Act), the government has been estimated by the government as a comprehensive improvement for the purpose of streamlining the administration of these assets. However, critics have described it as an attempt to expand state control over religious institutions.
earlier this year, Many petitioners transferred the Supreme Court On the basis of this, challenging the law that it has violated the fundamental right of the Muslim community to manage his own religious affairs. Article 26 of the ConstitutionThe petitioners included leaders of political spectrum, such as AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, TMC MP Mahua Motra, and RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, who were with parties like YSR Congress and Communist Party of India. He argued that before making Waqf, a person needs to be a Muslim for at least five years, who used to curb arbitrary and religious freedom before making Waqf. He also opposed the district collectors with the right to decide ownership disputes, ensuring that such questions come within the exclusive domains of civil courts and tribunals. Another base of the challenge was the decision to allow non-Muslims on Waqf boards and councils, according to the petitioners, violated under the rights of the minority community. Article 30 To manage your own institutions.
Defending the law, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented that amendments were designed to promote transparency and improve accountability in management of Waqf properties. He also argued that the centralized registration of properties in the district collectors and setting up a system of initial investigative powers would reduce litigation and reduce the load on tribunals. The government also stated that in line with the principles of inclusiveness and overseas, including non-Muslim members, while the purpose of five years of practice was aimed at preventing the opportunistic claims of conversion.
What are the provisions that are stopped?
In its 128 page decisionThe court upheld the estimate of the constitutionality of the law, but warned that it can be “serious consequences” for property rights and weakening minority security. It was therefore on some controversial provisions, while clarifying that these were only interim directions that were pending the final postponement of the constitutional challenge for the law.
The powers of the District Collector: The court suspended Section 3C of the revised law, which authorized the district collectors to inquire whether the assets claimed as Waqf were actually government land and accordingly to change the revenue records. It also hit the section that automatically divided the property of its WAQF status after an investigation began, calling it “Prima Facial Arbitrary” and wearing that the title questions should be decided by judicial or semi-judic bodies. To balance the interests, the court clarified that Waqf properties will not be done during the pendency of action, but Muutavalis Or Custodians are stopped from creating third-party rights in disputed assets until the case is eventually decided by the Waqf Tribunal or High Courts.
The court further emphasized that land notified as protected monuments related to Scheduled Tribes or Central or State Laws cannot be declared a Waqf, citing constitutional safety measures for tribals and statutory security for heritage sites. Also noted that Ancient monuments and archaeological site and relics act, 1958All allows citizens to continue their customary religious practices even within the notified areas as preserved monuments.
Condition to practice Islam for five years: The 2025 Act amended the definition of ‘Waqf’, so that it could ban his composition for “showing or displaying that he has been practicing Islam for at least five years.” The petitioners challenged this stipend as an arbitrary and discriminatory, arguing that it effectively empowers executive officials to postpone the righteousness of citizens. The bench, however, refused to strike this provision, assuming that it was appropriate as a measure to prevent possible misuse of Waqf properties. “The possibility of any person is not related to the Muslim community, only to take advantage of the protection of the Waqf Act to be converted into Islamic religion so that the creditors can be defeated and the law can be thrown out under the cloak of a commendable dedication.”
At the same time, the court admitted that no process is present to verify whether a person has been practicing Islam for five years. Therefore, it suspended the operation of the provision until the Center frames the rules under the Act, clarifying that the need would be effective only after such a mechanism is in place. The bench has also retained the requirement that can only be dedicated to the property -owned property of the person making the Waqf, given that both classical Islamic jurisers and the principles of charity need to donate their property to a person, not others.
Inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf institutions: The petitioners strongly opposed the provisions of the 2025 law, allowing non-Muslims to serve at the Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, arguing that it reduced the constitutional rights of the community to manage its own religious affairs. Addressing these concerns, the court said that such participation should be limited. It directed that the Central Waqf Council, the Central Ministry of Central Minority Affairs, would not include a 22-member National Advisory Body, more than four non-Muslim members. The State Waqf Board, who has 11 members, was similarly on three non-Muslim members.
The court also said that the amended law removes the requirement that the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board should be Muslim. Accordingly, it was suggested that the post should be preferably conducted by a member of the community, which in view of the religious character of Waqf institutions.
What are the provisions that will continue to operate?
The court allowed some major provisions to be implemented, relying on the government’s argument that they were required to curb the misuse of mismanagement and Waqfism.
Lack of ‘Waqf’ properties by the user: The petitioners contested the removal of the long -standing principle of “Waqf” by the user, under which the land employed for Muslim religious or charitable objectives in a continuous period can also be considered as Waqf without formal registration. He said that this theory was abolished at the very core of Waqf jurisprudence.
However, the court refused to suspend the possible operation of the provision, given that theory was often exploited as Waqf property to claim wide routes of government land. “… We are also considering that if the legislature, in 2025, it finds that due to the concept of ‘Waqf’ by the user, heavy government properties have been encroached and to prevent the said danger, it takes steps to remove the said provision, the said amendment, prima facial, cannot be called an arbitrary,” it cannot be said. The judges also recalled a 2022 decision, seeking a notification of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board, demanding thousands of acres of state -owned land to be nominated as Waqf.
The court also upheld the need to register Waqf properties on a central digital portal, arguing that it is necessary for transparency and given that such registration is required by law since 1923.
Prevention of limit act: The court refused to live for Waqf properties, given the application of the Border Act, 1963, given that the law applies equally to all assets. Under the 1995 Act, the WAQF land was exempted, allowing the WAQF boards to recreate the encroached property without binding from the 12 -year limit period of the Act.
What are the implications?
Faizan Mustafa, noted educationist and Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, told Hindu Excessive reading in the interim order will be ahead of time as the decision on qualification is still waiting. ,The court can strike some more problematic provisions or even retain those who have been constantly, ”he said.
On the court’s refusal to treat five years of “practicing Islam”, Dr. Mustafa said that this provision effectively empowers the state officials to postpone the righteousness of a person. “Once a person embraces Islam, they acquire all the concerned rights, including the right to religious dedication. Whether someone accepted or was born yesterday, it does not matter. It does not matter. It will only include only private religious options in policing by presenting such a warning in property rights,” he warned.
However, he welcomed the court’s discovery that executive officers violate the principle of separation of the powers with the power to decide the title questions.
Published – 17 September, 2025 07:10 pm IST
