The Supreme Court of India has delivered an important and nuanced interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a law intended to overhaul the registration and management of Waqf properties nationwide. In doing so, the Court has struck what many see as a careful middle path, stopping certain controversial provisions from taking effect while allowing the rest of the Act to remain operational.
Table of Contents
The ruling is significant not only because of its impact on Waqf properties but also because it speaks to a much larger constitutional question: how far Parliament can go in reforming religious endowments and whether its powers have meaningful limits when individual rights are at stake. The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s ongoing effort to strike a balance between governance reform and the protection of fundamental rights, a theme that has been a recurring theme in several recent constitutional cases.
What Are Waqfs and Why Do They Matter
To understand the controversy, it is important to first understand what a Waqf is and why its governance is such a sensitive topic.
A Waqf is a permanent dedication of property, which could be land, buildings, or other assets, for purposes recognized by Islamic law as religious, charitable, or pious. The person who creates the Waqf, known as the Waqif, typically does so to ensure that the property continues to serve the public good in perpetuity, such as funding mosques, supporting education, or providing aid to the poor. Once a Waqf is created, its ownership technically passes to God, and the property cannot be sold or transferred for any private purpose. The management of this property is entrusted to a Mutawalli, a kind of caretaker or manager who is bound to follow the intent of the donor.
India has one of the largest collections of Waqf properties in the world, spread across almost every state. These properties include valuable real estate in prime urban locations, agricultural land, schools, hospitals, and shrines. They represent a significant source of socio-economic support for the Muslim community. However, they have also been plagued by complaints of mismanagement, encroachments, disputes over title, and a lack of accountability.
It is against this background that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was introduced.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Key Features
- The 2025 amendments were billed by the government as a major step forward in cleaning up Waqf administration. Among the most notable changes were:
- Mandatory Registration: The law made it compulsory for all Waqf properties to be registered with the Waqf Board, with detailed information about their location, size, and current use.
- Stricter Verification: It introduced a verification process to confirm whether a property being claimed as Waqf was genuinely dedicated to religious or charitable purposes.
- Government Power to Take Over: Under certain circumstances, the government was given the power to assume control of Waqf land, particularly where disputes existed or where the property was required for public projects.
- Five-Year Practice Requirement: The Act introduced a clause that required an individual to prove that they had been practicing Islam for at least five years before they could create a Waqf.
- Changes to Dispute Resolution: The law sought to streamline how disputes over Waqf properties would be handled, reducing the jurisdiction of civil courts and vesting more authority in Waqf Tribunals.
- Supporters of the Act argued that these measures were necessary to bring much-needed transparency and prevent misuse of Waqf assets, which are often vulnerable to illegal occupation or misappropriation. Critics, however, felt that several provisions went too far and amounted to state overreach into the religious affairs of a minority community.
The Challenge in Court
- Several petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the 2025 amendments. The petitioners, which included Waqf Boards, religious scholars, and civil society organizations, argued that:
- The law’s five-year practice requirement discriminated against converts to Islam, effectively excluding them from creating a Waqf despite their faith being genuine.
- Provisions allowing the government to question the Waqf status of property before an inquiry violated the principle of natural justice.
- The Act gave excessive powers to authorities to convert disputed Waqf property into government property without due process.
- Some clauses infringed on the right to manage religious affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious denominations the freedom to own and administer property for religious purposes.
- The central government, defending the law, argued that it was well within Parliament’s power to legislate on Waqf matters under the Concurrent List of the Constitution and that the changes were aimed at protecting, not weakening, Waqf properties.
Supreme Court’s Interim Order: Key Takeaways
The Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud issued an interim order after several days of hearing arguments from all sides. The ruling was detailed and carefully reasoned, guiding how the law should be applied while the case is pending final hearing.
1. Prima Facie Arbitrariness
The Court observed that the law failed to provide a robust mechanism to decide whether a property was genuinely a Waqf before changing its legal status. This raised the risk of arbitrary decisions. The Bench particularly criticized the five-year practice requirement, calling it an unreasonable burden on individuals. Faith, the Court noted, is an intensely personal matter and cannot be subjected to a rigid timeline.
2. Section 36 and Government Control
One of the most controversial parts of the Act was Section 36, which allowed authorities to treat a property as non-Waqf even before completing an official inquiry. The Supreme Court stayed this provision, saying that it violated principles of due process and could lead to wrongful deprivation of property rights.
3. Mandatory Registration Upheld
The Court agreed with the government that mandatory registration of Waqf properties was a legitimate measure to ensure better record-keeping and prevent encroachment. However, it clarified that the requirement would apply prospectively; in other words, it would govern newly created Waqfs, but not retrospectively invalidate unregistered Waqfs created in the past.
4. Protected Monuments
The government argued that some properties automatically lost their Waqf status once they were declared protected monuments under heritage laws. The Court disagreed, stating that such a conclusion had no basis in law and that religious character cannot be extinguished merely by a notification.
5. Tribal and Minority Rights
The Bench acknowledged concerns that tribal Muslims and smaller sects could face difficulties under the new law. It noted that any reform effort must be sensitive to minority rights and avoid disproportionately burdening already vulnerable communities.
Government and Opposition Responses
Interestingly, both the government and the opposition welcomed the Supreme Court’s order, though for different reasons.
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju hailed the decision as a victory for democracy, pointing out that the court had upheld the core intent of the law to bring accountability to Waqf management. He stated that the judgment would “strengthen the trust of the Muslim community in the legal system” by ensuring that genuine Waqf properties were protected from misuse.
The opposition, led by several major parties, claimed that the court had validated their concerns about overreach. They highlighted the fact that the most controversial clauses, including those allowing the government to unilaterally change the status of Waqf property, had been stayed. According to them, this was proof that the law in its original form was flawed and needed significant correction.
Implications for Waqf Governance
- The decision is expected to have several far-reaching consequences for the governance of Waqf properties in India:
- Greater Legal Protection for Waqf Property Owners: By staying provisions that could have led to the conversion of Waqf land into government property without due process, the Court has reassured Waqf beneficiaries that their rights will be protected.
- Encouragement for Transparent Management: Upholding prospective registration could help create a comprehensive database of Waqf properties, improving transparency and reducing disputes.
- Judicial Check on Parliament’s Power: The ruling reaffirms that while Parliament can legislate on religious endowments, its laws must respect constitutional principles, particularly equality and freedom of religion.
- Setting the Stage for Final Hearing: The interim order is not the last word. The case will go through a detailed hearing where the constitutional validity of the Act will be finally decided.
A Step Toward Balanced Reform
The Supreme Court’s approach shows a willingness to engage deeply with the competing interests at stake. On one side is the need to reform Waqf management, a sector long criticized for lack of transparency. On the other side is the need to preserve religious freedom and avoid unnecessary state interference in faith-based institutions.
Legal scholars have pointed out that the judgment may become a precedent for other cases involving religious property, including Hindu temple management and church land disputes. The Court’s insistence on due process could strengthen the rule of law across all religious communities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, marks an important moment in the ongoing debate over how religious endowments should be governed in a modern constitutional democracy. By striking down some of the most contentious provisions while allowing the rest of the Act to operate, the Court has attempted to strike a balance between the need for reform and the protection of fundamental rights. Its decision reflects a recognition that Waqf properties are both a religious and socio-economic institution, deeply tied to the welfare of the Muslim community, and cannot be subjected to arbitrary interference.
The stay on Section 36 and the five-year practice requirement are especially significant. It sends a clear message that the state cannot impose unreasonable or exclusionary conditions on who may create a Waqf or strip a property of its religious status without due process. At the same time, the Court’s decision to uphold mandatory registration applied prospectively shows that it supports greater transparency and accountability in Waqf administration, provided it does not retroactively invalidate past dedications. This careful reasoning helps reassure both sides: the government that reform efforts can proceed, and the petitioners that constitutional safeguards remain intact.
The ruling also reinforces a broader constitutional principle: Parliament’s power to legislate on religious endowments is not unlimited. Any law in this area must respect individual rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and meet the standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness. In that sense, the judgment is likely to have implications beyond Waqf law, influencing future cases on temple management, church property, and other religious trusts.
As the matter proceeds to a final hearing, the interim order provides a workable framework for balancing reform with rights. It encourages the creation of a comprehensive and transparent record of Waqf properties while preventing the misuse of state power to encroach on religious autonomy. If followed through, this approach could become a model for how India undertakes sensitive reforms in other areas involving faith-based institutions, one that combines good governance with respect for pluralism and constitutional values.
References
The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. Supreme Court of India, Interim Judgment, 15 September 2025
SC Refuses To Stay Waqf Law; Puts On Hold Certain Provisions Of Waqf Amendment Act 2025
