The Supreme Court on Monday refused to suspend the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety, but carried forward some controversial provisions, marking a significant development in the debate around the regulation of Islamic charitable endowments.
There are provisions that empower collectors to determine unilaterally among suspended people whether the assets claimed as Waqf belong to the government, and it is determined that only the owner of a legitimate property who has been practicing Islam for at least five years can create a waqf through a formal deed. The court clarified that the need to be a practice for five years will be effective only after the central and state governments frame the rules for such compliance.
“We welcome the order of the Supreme Court. Some people unnecessarily oppose the Act in the apex court. You cannot challenge the right to Parliament, you can challenge some provisions of the law, and SC confirmed,” Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijuju said.
While India’s Chief Justice Bhushan R Gawai and Justice AG Masi upheld the estimate of the constitutionality associated with the law, it said that the law can create “serious consequences” for property rights without security, without security.
At the same time, the apex court allowed several other provisions of the amended law, in which the Waqf-by-user (where a property is accepted as a WAQF is accepted, as it is used for religious activities for some time, despite that no official announcement or registration) is said to conduct. It is also believed that compulsory registration of WAQF properties on a central digital portal cannot be intervened, given that it will promote transparency and efficiency, in addition to being a requirement under relevant laws since 1923. Similarly, the bench confirmed the purpose of the Border Act, for the statutory time limit for civil affairs, for the Wattsfor Property, for the statutory time limit.
Waqf, in the Islamic law, refers to a charitable settlement, where a person dedicates property to religious or philanthropic purposes, with a specified group or with advantage for public good. Notified in April, 2025 law 1995 amends the WAQF Act, and has been postponed by the government as a comprehensive overhaul for the purpose of improving the administration and management of Waqf properties. However, several Muslim organizations and opposition parties, including the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party and All India Majlis-e-Itahadul Muslimeen, criticized the amendments, in which the community’s religious rights were accused of encroachment, and change reduced the autonomy on Waqf Institutions and infected.
Also read: SC ruling constitutionality on Waqf, a good balance of estimates of property rights act
While distributing its interim order on a batch of the law -killing petitions, the most important restraint imposed by the court formed the new powers contained in the collectors. Under the amended law, collectors were authorized to decide the nature of an asset and make a report to change the revenue records to reflect that it is Waqf or Government land. The bench suspended this provision, called the provision “Prima Facial Midality”, and said that such determination should be left for judicial or semi-judicial bodies.
“Any such determination will be subject to the Waqf Tribunal and the concerned High Courts,” the court said. Until the proceedings before the conclusion of the Waqf Tribunal, it was not directed, the respective properties will not have any third-party rights by the Mutavalis of such Waqf or Custodian.
The court also emphasized that people notified as the land related to the Scheduled Tribes, or as preserved monuments under the central or state laws, cannot be declared as Waqf properties. This, it said, was required for the tribals to protect both constitutional safety measures and statutory security for heritage sites. In addition, it was noted that ancient monuments and archaeological sites and Remnants Act, 1958, allows citizens to continue with their customary religious practices, even if such an area is a protected monument.
Also read: Waqf was widely misused by the user to claim government land: Supreme Court
Another area of ​​the court dispute addressed by the court was the composition of Waqf Council and boards. The amended act allows non-Muslims to be nominated as members. However, the court ruled that such participation should be limited. It directed that a National Advisory Body presided over the former officer by the Union Minister under minority matters of the Union Waqf Council-Union Ministry, they should not have more than four non-Muslim members. Similarly, the State Waqf Board, said, should not be more than three non-Muslim members.
Furthermore, while the amended Act is not clearly needed that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the State Waqf Boards should be Muslims, the bench suggested that they should be preferably belonging to the community. This, the court said, keeping in mind the religious character of Waqf institutions, although it reduced the implementation of a mandatory rule.
The bench confirmed the decision of the Center to remove the provision related to the application of the Act or to remove the provision related to the application of the Act for the support of some Waqf, underlining that according to the petitioners, the Waqf is specific to Islamic religion and the argument behind the provision appears only with the need of a practical masalim.
The bench underlined the principle that the law is always considered constitutional, giving a decision on a group of two dozen petitions. Courts, who is that? CJI? Noted, should be cautious to suspend statutory provisions, and should do the same where prima facial violations are clear.
In the decision of its 128-Page, the bench chose a middle road, allowing most acts to be conducted, while suspending parts that could replace property rights irreputely or dilute minority safety. The court made it clear that these were interim directions, which were pending the last postponement of constitutional challenges for the law.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan, Abhishek Manu Singh, Q Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi appeared to the petitioners, as they said that they were only arbitrary and unconstitutional to restrict the right to create waqf for Muslims, who were practicing for at least five years. The need of five years, he argued, there was no rational innovation for the purpose of Waqf and unjustly religious freedom was curbed under Article 25 of the Constitution. He further challenged the empowerment of collectors to decide the disputes over Waqf properties, indicating that these were civil disputes that could only be postponed by tribunals and courts. Another planet of the petitioners was to include non-Muslims in Waqf Council and boards. Giving non-Muslim members, he said, “violated the rights of minorities to manage their own institutions under Article 30.
The central government defended the amendments through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and argued that the purpose of reforms was to bring more transparency, accountability and efficiency in the management of Waqf properties, which is one of the largest holdings of charitable land in the country. It said that centralized registration of properties would prevent encroachment and record losses, while empowering collectors to determine the initial determination will reduce the burden on tribunal and courts. To include non-Muslim members, the government said, in line with comprehensive principles of inclusiveness and its purpose was to ensure investigation and balance. At the requirement of five years to create WAQF, the Center argued that it was to prevent misuse by persons with hard or opportunistic claims of conversion.
The controversial amendment to the Central Waqf Act, which aims to make extensive changes in the regulation and management of Islamic charitable settlement, was approved by the Parliament in April.
The apex court order attracted sharp political reactions, re -confirmed the right to Parliament and the opposition said that this is a vengeance of their attitude against the Act.
Congress General Secretary Jeram Ramesh won this order for those who opposed the law in Parliament. He said, “SC’s order is not only a win for parties that opposed the Act in Parliament, but also for the members of the JPC who presented a detailed dissatisfaction note,” he said.
