The Supreme Court delivered its crucial verdict on the contentious Waqf Amendment Act 2025, refusing to impose a blanket stay while temporarily halting specific provisions. Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih pronounced this landmark decision on September 15, 2025, addressing widespread concerns about the amended legislation. However, the court stayed only three key provisions while allowing most of the controversial law to remain operational.
What the Supreme Court Actually Stayed
The apex court’s decision primarily targeted three contentious provisions that raised constitutional concerns. First, the requirement mandating individuals to demonstrate practicing Islam for five years before creating a waqf faces suspension until state governments frame appropriate rules. Without proper mechanisms to determine religious practice, this provision could lead to arbitrary power exercise, the court observed.
Additionally, the Supreme Court stayed provisions granting district collectors sweeping powers to adjudicate waqf property disputes. Such powers violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers, as executive officers cannot decide citizens’ rights, the bench ruled. Furthermore, the automatic denotification of waqf properties during pending disputes received a temporary halt.
Major Provisions That Continue Operating
Despite staying key sections, the Supreme Court upheld most controversial amendments to the original Waqf Act. Registration requirements for all waqf properties remain mandatory, continuing the digitization push through the UMEED portal. The court reasoned that registration existed in previous legislation before being temporarily removed in 2013.
Moreover, the complete removal of “waqf by user” concept stays intact, fundamentally changing how properties achieve waqf status. This provision prevents properties from automatically becoming waqf through long-term religious use, addressing government concerns about illegal land grabbing. Prospectively, only formal declaration or endowment can create new waqf properties.
Supreme Court Decision Breakdown: Only 3 out of 12 key provisions stayed, with majority of Waqf Amendment Act remaining in effect
Non-Muslim Representation Clarified
The court addressed concerns about non-Muslim inclusion in waqf governance bodies through specific limitations. Central Waqf Council membership for non-Muslims cannot exceed four members, while state boards face a three-member cap. These restrictions balance inclusivity with community representation concerns raised during parliamentary debates.
Nevertheless, the amendment allowing non-Muslim CEOs for state waqf boards remains valid, though the court suggested preferring Muslim appointments. This nuanced approach acknowledges administrative efficiency while respecting community preferences for religious leadership.
Application of Limitation Act Upheld
The Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ challenge to applying the Limitation Act 1963 to waqf properties. Previously, waqf boards enjoyed unlimited time to pursue encroachment cases, creating an exception that the court viewed as discriminatory. Therefore, legal claims against property encroachments must now follow standard time limitations applicable to other property disputes.
This change significantly impacts waqf boards’ ability to reclaim properties after extended periods. Consequently, boards must pursue legal remedies within prescribed timeframes, bringing waqf law in line with general property litigation principles.
Political Reactions Across Spectrum
Opposition parties welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision as vindication of their constitutional challenge. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh described the order as undoing “mischievous intentions” behind the original statute. Similarly, DMK president MK Stalin praised the decision for safeguarding religious rights of the Muslim minority community.
Meanwhile, BJP leaders maintained confidence in the legislation’s constitutional validity. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju interpreted the decision favorably, emphasizing that Parliament’s decision received judicial endorsement. BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, who chaired the Joint Parliamentary Committee, characterized the stays as temporary measures pending rule formulation.
Impact on Muslim Community
The Supreme Court’s decision provides mixed outcomes for India’s 200 million Muslims. While staying the controversial five-year practice requirement, the ruling allows most administrative changes to proceed. Importantly, existing waqf properties registered under “waqf by user” retain protection unless involved in government disputes.
However, future waqf creation faces stricter requirements through mandatory formal documentation and ownership verification. Women’s inheritance rights receive enhanced protection, ensuring female heirs cannot be denied rightful shares before property dedication.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Chief Justice Gavai emphasized the presumption of constitutionality favoring parliamentary legislation, noting stays apply only in “rarest of rare” circumstances. This judicial restraint reflects established constitutional doctrine respecting legislative authority while protecting fundamental rights.
Furthermore, the court’s separation of powers doctrine prevented executive officers from adjudicating property disputes. This principle ensures judicial independence in resolving complex ownership questions affecting religious endowments worth billions of rupees.
What Happens Next
The stayed provisions remain suspended until final adjudication of constitutional challenges filed by various political parties and Muslim organizations. Multiple petitions from AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, and other groups continue their legal journey through the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, state governments must formulate rules determining religious practice criteria before implementing the five-year requirement. This process could take months, potentially delaying enforcement indefinitely depending on political will and administrative capacity.
Conclusion: Partial Victory for All Sides
The Supreme Court’s nuanced decision grants partial victories to both supporters and opponents of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. While constitutional challenges succeeded in staying problematic provisions, the government’s broader reform agenda remains largely intact.
Ultimately, this interim order demonstrates judicial wisdom in balancing legislative authority with constitutional protections. As final hearings approach, both the Muslim community and government officials must prepare for comprehensive constitutional scrutiny of this landmark legislation affecting religious property management across India.
