The Supreme Court of India Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih in September, 2025, passed an interim order on challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While refusing to suspend the Act in its entirety, it stayed certain provisions deemed prima facie arbitrary.
Supreme Court’s Directions:
| ü Provisions Upheld (Not Stayed) | ❌ Provisions Stayed (Suspended) |
| v No blanket suspension: The Act remains in force, as laws passed by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality. | v Five-year practice rule: Requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for at least five years before dedicating property as Waqf. |
| v Abolition of “Waqf by User”: The court upheld the removal of this concept, noting it prevents misuse and encroachment on government land. | v Collector’s authority: Power of a government officer (e.g., Collector) to declare Waqf property as government-owned. The court ruled such matters must be decided by judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. |
| v Protection of disputed properties: No third-party rights can be created over Waqf properties under dispute until adjudication by a Waqf Tribunal and appeals before the High Court. | v Board composition limits: Central Waqf Council (22 members) → max 4 non-Muslims. – State Waqf Boards (11 members) → max 3 non-Muslims. – CEO of a Waqf Board should, as far as possible, be a Muslim. |
Key Implication:
The interim order apparently reflects a balanced stance. Parliament’s law continues to operate, but provisions affecting religious autonomy and property rights are paused. Judicial forums, not executive officers, remain central to Waqf property disputes.
Safeguarding Minority Rights and Judicial Integrity:
The Supreme Court’s temporary directive skilfully balances parliamentary authority with fundamental constitutional guarantees. Although the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 officially remains in effect, the Court has judiciously paused specific clauses that could potentially infringe upon religious freedoms or the property ownership rights of minority communities. This measured intervention respects the legislative intent of Parliament while ensuring the inviolability of fundamental rights.
Crucially, the Court has stipulated that disagreements concerning Waqf properties must undergo judicial determination rather than being left to executive discretion. This mandate deeply reflects the secular foundations of the Constitution, a principle reaffirmed as part of its basic structure in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). By assigning adjudicatory power to the judiciary, the order effectively minimizes arbitrary actions and upholds the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14.
Moreover, the ruling reinforces the constitutional protections extended to religious and linguistic minorities under Articles 25 to 30. The judiciary’s acknowledgment of minority autonomy in religious and property matters is supported by precedents such as Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968), which defined the limits of state intervention in minority institutions, and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), which affirmed minorities’ right to manage their religious and educational affairs with significant independence.
From an international standpoint, the Court’s approach aligns with India’s global commitments. The 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities encourages nations to protect the identity, organizations, and cultural and religious participation of minorities. Similarly, Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a signatory, assures that religious minorities cannot be denied the right to profess and practice their faith in community with others.
In essence, by ensuring judicial oversight and defending minority self-determination, this provisional order harmonizes domestic constitutional principles with international human rights obligations. It underscores that legislative power, while supreme, must operate in concert with foundational values like secularism, equality, and minority protection. Thus, the Court has not only upheld the standing of religious minorities but also strengthened the constitutional framework against potential encroachments that could compromise its inclusive spirit.
Next Steps:
- Await final judgment: The interim order may be revised when the Court issues its final ruling.
- Government officers: Must avoid exercising stayed powers.
- Disputed properties: To be maintained without creating third-party rights.
- Waqf Boards: Ensure compliance with interim membership limits.
