Supreme Court stays parts of Waqf Amendment Act amid challenges

The Supreme Court has delivered a partial reprieve to challengers of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, staying three contentious provisions while declining to suspend the law in its entirety. The bench, led by Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai alongside Justices Augustine George Masih and KV Viswanathan, pronounced its interim order on 15 September, hours before the current date's close. 

This decision addresses petitions filed by opposition leaders, Muslim organisations and residents of disputed sites, who argue the amendments infringe on constitutional rights to religious freedom and equality. The stayed clauses include the requirement for a five-year practice of Islam to declare a waqf, the power of district collectors to de-notify disputed properties during investigations, and limits on non-Muslim representation in waqf boards. 

The ruling underscores the highest court's intent to balance reforms aimed at curbing encroachments with safeguards for minority endowments, which manage properties worth billions of rupees nationwide.

Court stays key provisions

The Supreme Court explicitly halted Section 3(1)(c) of the amended act, which mandates that only individuals practising Islam for at least five years can dedicate property as waqf—a condition petitioners deemed discriminatory and contrary to Islamic tenets that recognise spontaneous endowments. 

Chief Justice Gavai observed that this clause "prima facie" violates Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the constitution, guaranteeing equality, non-discrimination and religious freedom. The stay will hold until the central government frames detailed rules, expected within months, allowing the court to revisit the issue.

A second provision under Section 40, empowering district collectors or equivalent officers to investigate disputed waqf lands and provisionally deem them non-waqf during proceedings, was also paused. This addresses fears of arbitrary state intervention, particularly in cases like the Munambam beachfront in Kerala, where residents have petitioned against waqf claims over private holdings. 

The bench directed that no de-notification can occur until waqf tribunals adjudicate, preventing what critics called "bulldozer justice" akin to demolitions in Uttar Pradesh.

The third stayed element concerns Section 9(2), which caps non-Muslim members on state waqf boards and the central council at two, down from previous flexibility. The court viewed this as potentially undermining the bodies' autonomy, ordering a hold until further hearings. However, the bench refused to stay the overarching requirement for waqf registration via the proposed online portal or the application of the Limitation Act to claims, provisions seen as tools for transparency and preventing perpetual litigation.

Background to the Waqf Amendment Act

Enacted in August 2025 amid fierce parliamentary debate, the Waqf (Amendment) Act seeks to modernise the 1995 law governing Islamic charitable endowments, which oversee mosques, schools and orphanages on over 870,000 registered properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres. 

Proponents, including the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, hailed it as a reform to eliminate encroachments—estimated at 58,000 cases nationwide—and introduce digitisation for better accountability. Key changes include mandatory surveys by collectors, inclusion of non-Muslims in governance, and barriers to "waqf by user," where long-term possession implies endowment status.

Opposition parties and bodies like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) condemned it as an assault on minority rights, alleging it dilutes waqf autonomy under Article 26 and echoes majoritarian agendas. Petitions, led by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and DMK's Asar Ahmed, were filed shortly after presidential assent on 5 August, with urgent hearings granted last week. 

The court, in a marathon session on 11 September, reserved its order after hearing arguments on the act's potential to disenfranchise 200 million Muslims.

The Munambam case exemplifies the stakes: over 700 Christian families in Kerala claim ancestral lands were wrongly declared waqf in 2002, sparking protests and demands for rule-framing to clarify disputes. Similar flashpoints exist in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal, where the Shahi Masjid's waqf status was contested as a protected monument.

Reactions from stakeholders

Muslim organisations expressed mixed relief. The AIMPLB termed the order "incomplete and unsatisfactory," welcoming the stays but decrying the refusal to halt the full act, which they say entrenches collector overreach. In Hyderabad, Telangana Waqf Board chairman Azmatullah Hussaini noted the interim nature, emphasising that concerns over "waqf by user" and Limitation Act applicability persist, rooted in religious traditions. 

Celebrations ensued in Aligarh, where activists distributed sweets, viewing it as a rebuke to what they perceived as an overreach.

On X, formerly Twitter, sentiments varied. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam praised the stay as a "people's victory" for secularism, while critics like @MumbaichaDon hailed it as validating the act by excluding government or tribal lands from waqf claims. @mehrozkhaninc welcomed the balance on minority rights, and @Intel_Observer decried it as endorsing the BJP's agenda.

Government sources remained sanguine, with the solicitor general arguing during hearings that reforms curb misuse without impinging on faith. Opposition figures like Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra linked it to broader citizenship debates, though the partial stay tempers immediate backlash.

Implications for disputed properties

The order halts immediate de-notifications, offering breathing room in hotspots like Munambam, where residents demand expedited tribunal rules to resolve claims without state fiat. In Sambhal, properties like the Shahi Masjid retain waqf status pending adjudication, averting Section 3D's voiding of protected monuments as waqf.

Broader ramifications include a push for rule-making: the court mandated the Centre to notify regulations within weeks, potentially incorporating stakeholder inputs to address "waqf by user" ambiguities. Legal experts predict a full hearing by December, weighing the act against precedents like the 2019 Triple Talaq ruling, which balanced reform with rights.

This interim verdict highlights the judiciary's role in navigating India's pluralistic fabric. As waqf boards grapple with digitisation deadlines—now 31 December—the stays prevent a cascade of disputes, fostering dialogue over division. Yet, with encroachments persisting and endowments vital for community welfare, the path to finality remains fraught, testing commitments to equitable governance.