{"id":8767,"date":"2025-09-16T06:05:45","date_gmt":"2025-09-16T06:05:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8767"},"modified":"2025-09-17T06:07:27","modified_gmt":"2025-09-17T06:07:27","slug":"supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court\u2019s Partial Stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: A Constitutional Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"<article lang=\"en\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<section id=\"intro\" class=\"section\">On 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order examining the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the Court refused to grant a blanket suspension of the statute, thereby reaffirming the presumption of constitutionality attached to parliamentary enactments, it simultaneously recognised that certain provisions raised serious prima facie concerns and could result in irreversible consequences if allowed to operate.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Background_to_the_Waqf_Amendment_Act_2025\" >Background to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#The_Supreme_Courts_Order\" >The Supreme Court\u2019s Order<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Reasoning\" >Judicial Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Implications_of_the_Order\" >Implications of the Order<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Analysis_of_the_Order\" >Analysis of the Order<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#FAQ_Supreme_Court_Judgment_on_Waqf_Amendment_Act_2025\" >FAQ: Supreme Court Judgment on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_is_the_Waqf_Amendment_Act_2025\" >What is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_are_the_main_legal_challenges_against_this_Amendment\" >What are the main legal challenges against this Amendment?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_did_the_Supreme_Court_decide_in_the_latest_judgment_interim_order\" >What did the Supreme Court decide in the latest judgment \/ interim order?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Which_provisions_were_stayed_suspended\" >Which provisions were stayed \/ suspended?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Which_parts_of_the_Act_remain_in_force\" >Which parts of the Act remain in force?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_are_the_constitutional_issues_rights_involved\" >What are the constitutional issues \/ rights involved?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_is_the_effect_of_staying_those_provisions\" >What is the effect of staying those provisions?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_is_the_status_of_the_case_what_happens_next\" >What is the status of the case \/ what happens next?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#Why_did_the_Court_not_stay_the_whole_Act\" >Why did the Court not stay the whole Act?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_are_the_reactions_concerns\" >What are the reactions \/ concerns?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-courts-partial-stay-on-waqf-constitutional-analysis\/#What_are_the_major_takeaways_implications_going_forward\" >What are the major takeaways \/ implications going forward?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>Accordingly, the Court placed a partial stay on specific provisions, most notably the requirement that only a person who had practised Islam for at least five years could create a waqf, as well as the provision conferring authority on district collectors to conclusively determine whether land claimed as waqf constituted government property. The interim order thus reflects a judicial effort to balance the State\u2019s objective of reforming waqf administration with the constitutional imperative of safeguarding fundamental rights.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Background_to_the_Waqf_Amendment_Act_2025\"><\/span>Background to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<section id=\"background\" class=\"section\">The Waqf Act, 1995 has served as the principal legislation regulating Muslim charitable endowments in India. Over the years, however, persistent allegations of encroachment, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the administration of waqf properties generated increasing demands for reform.<\/p>\n<p>In response, the Union Government enacted the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, presenting it as a measure to strengthen accountability, enhance transparency, and curb misuse of endowed assets. The amendments introduced several significant changes, including the establishment of a centralised registration system through the UMEED digital portal, greater governmental oversight of waqf boards, and the abolition of the doctrine of waqf by user.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, the Act incorporated highly contested provisions, such as the stipulation that only individuals who had practised Islam for at least five years could create a waqf, and the conferral of authority on district collectors to adjudicate disputes concerning waqf lands with powers extending to the alteration of revenue records. These provisions soon became the subject of constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court, with petitioners contending that they infringed fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Supreme_Courts_Order\"><\/span>The Supreme Court\u2019s Order<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<section id=\"order\" class=\"section\">In its interim order, the bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih reaffirmed the principle that legislation enacted by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality, and therefore a complete suspension of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was unwarranted at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.[1]<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, the Court acknowledged that certain provisions, if implemented immediately, could result in irreparable harm by altering rights in ways that would be difficult to reverse should those provisions ultimately be struck down. On this basis, the Court directed a partial stay, suspending three provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>Foremost among these was the clause mandating that only an individual who had practised Islam for a minimum of five years would be eligible to dedicate property as waqf. The Court observed that the provision suffered from a lack of procedural clarity, since no rules had been framed to define or verify the notion of \u201cpractising Islam.\u201d The ambiguity surrounding its application, coupled with the potential for discriminatory outcomes, led the Court to hold that the clause could not be permitted to operate during the pendency of the challenge.[2]<\/p>\n<p>The Court also stayed the provision granting district collectors unilateral authority to conclusively determine whether land claimed as waqf was in fact government property, with the consequential power to amend revenue records. Such executive powers, it reasoned, risked undermining the jurisdiction of waqf tribunals and High Courts, and therefore could not be allowed to take effect without judicial oversight. A third connected provision concerning executive authority over disputed lands was likewise suspended.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, the Court declined to interfere with other provisions of the Amendment Act. In particular, it upheld the validity of reforms such as the requirement for centralised registration of waqf properties through the UMEED portal, noting that such measures were designed to enhance accountability and transparency and did not, on their face, infringe the constitutional guarantee of religious autonomy.[3]<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<section id=\"reasoning\" class=\"section\">The Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning demonstrates a careful application of constitutional principles. By refusing to stay the entire Act, the Court emphasised the presumption of constitutionality and Parliament\u2019s legitimate power to legislate for reform in the management of charitable endowments.<\/p>\n<p>However, the Court simultaneously acknowledged the danger of allowing provisions with far-reaching consequences to take effect before their validity was fully tested. In particular, the unilateral power given to collectors to change revenue records was seen as an infringement upon the role of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies such as waqf tribunals. The Court recognised that permitting such executive action would amount to creating a fait accompli situation, irreversibly altering property rights even before adjudication on merits.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, the Court noted that the five-year practising requirement raised serious constitutional issues under Articles 14 and 25. Unlike other religious traditions where no such eligibility criteria exist for the creation of charitable or religious endowments, the imposition of a faith-duration test on Muslims could be seen as discriminatory. Furthermore, in the absence of clear rules defining \u201cpractice,\u201d the provision left significant scope for arbitrary application. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to stay its operation until a final determination could be made or until the government framed detailed rules governing its application.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Implications_of_the_Order\"><\/span>Implications of the Order<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<section>The immediate consequence of the Supreme Court\u2019s order is that the requirement of compulsory registration of waqf properties through the UMEED portal remains in force. Waqf boards and mutawallis are accordingly obligated to comply with this mandate to ensure proper documentation, uniformity, and transparency in the management of endowed properties. At the same time, the suspension of the five-year eligibility criterion ensures that individuals wishing to dedicate property as waqf are not restricted by this condition until the Court delivers a final determination. Similarly, district collectors are restrained from unilaterally modifying revenue records of land claimed as waqf, with such disputes continuing to fall within the jurisdiction of waqf tribunals and superior courts rather than being conclusively settled by executive authority.<\/p>\n<p>Viewed through a constitutional lens, the ruling demonstrates the Court\u2019s reliance on the principle of proportionality in navigating the intersection of state-led reform and religious autonomy. Provisions that enhance accountability and transparency, while not directly impinging on fundamental rights, are permitted to operate. In contrast, clauses that pose risks to equality, freedom of religion, or the integrity of judicial oversight are subjected to more exacting scrutiny. In this way, the order reaffirms the delicate balance between preserving the autonomy of religious institutions and enabling the state to regulate their secular and administrative dimensions in the public interest.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<hr \/>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis_of_the_Order\"><\/span>Analysis of the Order<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><a href=\"\/legal\/article-21503-waqf-amendment-bill-2025-comprehensive-analysis-of-issues-key-amendments-and-proposed-solutions.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<\/a> must also be situated within its broader political and social context. Its enactment followed an intensified public debate over the governance of waqf properties, accompanied by recurring allegations of large-scale encroachment and mismanagement of endowed lands. The Union Government justified the amendments as essential for ensuring accountability, transparency, and the protection of public assets from misuse. Critics, however, contended that several provisions disproportionately targeted minority religious institutions and eroded their constitutionally protected autonomy. The Supreme Court\u2019s interim order does not conclusively settle these competing claims but instead represents a calibrated compromise. By permitting centralised reforms aimed at enhancing oversight while simultaneously suspending provisions deemed prima facie discriminatory or excessive, the Court has attempted to safeguard the objectives of administrative accountability without sacrificing the protection of fundamental rights.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<hr \/>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s interim order on the <a href=\"\/legal\/article-21207-the-waqf-amendment-act-2025-reform-or-overreach-.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<\/a> stands as a significant illustration of judicial moderation in the face of a contentious legislative reform. Rather than imposing a blanket suspension of the statute, the Court adopted a nuanced approach that permits Parliament\u2019s reformist agenda to proceed in areas aimed at improving transparency, accountability, and administrative efficiency. By upholding provisions such as the compulsory registration of waqf properties through the UMEED portal, the Court recognised the state\u2019s legitimate interest in ensuring proper documentation and safeguarding charitable assets from misuse. At the same time, it acted decisively to suspend provisions carrying the potential for discriminatory impact or excessive executive concentration of power, such as the five-year eligibility rule and the unilateral authority vested in district collectors to alter revenue records.<\/p>\n<p>This careful calibration reflects the Court\u2019s broader constitutional role as the guardian of fundamental rights, ensuring that the pursuit of administrative reform does not come at the expense of equality before the law (Article 14), freedom of religion (Article 25), and the autonomy of religious denominations (Article 26). In doing so, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to the principle of proportionality, permitting state regulation of the secular dimensions of religious institutions while insisting on stricter scrutiny where core rights are threatened.<\/p>\n<p>The litigation that follows will determine whether the impugned provisions withstand the rigours of constitutional review, particularly in light of the jurisprudence on minority rights, institutional autonomy, and the permissible scope of state regulation. For the present, however, the interim order ensures that reforms in waqf governance are not derailed, while simultaneously preserving the structural guarantees of equality, religious freedom, and judicial oversight enshrined in the Constitution. The judgment thus represents a measured balance between reform and rights, reflecting the judiciary\u2019s role in tempering legislative ambition with constitutional restraint.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<p><b>References:<\/b><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Supreme Court of India, Order dated 15 September 2025, Waqf (Amendment) Act Petitions; see also Hindustan Times, \u201cSupreme Court refuses to stay Waqf Amendment Act but suspends some key provisions\u201d (15 September 2025).<\/li>\n<li>Economic Times, \u201cSC stays key provisions in Waqf Amendment Act, puts 5-year Islam practice rule on hold\u201d (15 September 2025).<\/li>\n<li>Hindustan Times, supra note 1.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/article>\n\n\n  \n<hr><br>\n<h1><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"FAQ_Supreme_Court_Judgment_on_Waqf_Amendment_Act_2025\"><\/span>FAQ: Supreme Court Judgment on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n<br>\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_is_the_Waqf_Amendment_Act_2025\"><\/span>What is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>This law updates the Waqf Act of 1995 to enhance governance, transparency, and regulation of Waqf properties.<\/li>\n    <li>It repeals the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923.<\/li>\n    <li>Introduces new provisions regarding who can dedicate property as Waqf, changes to Waqf Board composition, and updated definitions.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_are_the_main_legal_challenges_against_this_Amendment\"><\/span>What are the main legal challenges against this Amendment?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>Concerns over violation of religious freedom and rights under Article 26 of the Constitution.<\/li>\n    <li>Questioning the constitutionality of requiring five years of Islamic practice to dedicate property as Waqf.<\/li>\n    <li>Objections to excluding \u201cWaqf by user\u201d from the definition.<\/li>\n    <li>Concerns about non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.<\/li>\n    <li>Issues with district collectors deciding ownership of claimed Waqf properties.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_did_the_Supreme_Court_decide_in_the_latest_judgment_interim_order\"><\/span>What did the Supreme Court decide in the latest judgment \/ interim order?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>The Court did not suspend the entire Amendment Act; most provisions remain in force.<\/li>\n    <li>However, it temporarily stayed specific provisions under challenge.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Which_provisions_were_stayed_suspended\"><\/span>Which provisions were stayed \/ suspended?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>The five-year Islamic practice requirement for dedicating property as Waqf.<\/li>\n    <li>District collectors\u2019 authority to determine government ownership of claimed Waqf properties.<\/li>\n    <li>Provisions affecting third-party rights in disputed Waqf properties.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Which_parts_of_the_Act_remain_in_force\"><\/span>Which parts of the Act remain in force?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>All provisions not specifically stayed continue to apply.<\/li>\n    <li>This includes reforms to Waqf Board composition, oversight, and regulatory powers.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_are_the_constitutional_issues_rights_involved\"><\/span>What are the constitutional issues \/ rights involved?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li><strong>Religious freedom:<\/strong> Concerns under Articles 25 and 26 about interference in religious affairs.<\/li>\n    <li><strong>Equality and non-discrimination:<\/strong> Challenges under Articles 14 and 15, especially regarding the five-year rule.<\/li>\n    <li><strong>Property rights:<\/strong> Disputes over recognition, dedication, and ownership of Waqf properties.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_is_the_effect_of_staying_those_provisions\"><\/span>What is the effect of staying those provisions?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>Stayed provisions are not enforceable until further notice.<\/li>\n    <li>The rest of the Act continues to be legally binding.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_is_the_status_of_the_case_what_happens_next\"><\/span>What is the status of the case \/ what happens next?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>The case is still under review by the Supreme Court.<\/li>\n    <li>The current ruling is interim; future hearings will determine the final outcome.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_did_the_Court_not_stay_the_whole_Act\"><\/span>Why did the Court not stay the whole Act?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>The Court emphasized that laws passed by Parliament are presumed constitutional.<\/li>\n    <li>Only provisions that appear arbitrary or potentially unconstitutional were stayed.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_are_the_reactions_concerns\"><\/span>What are the reactions \/ concerns?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>Some Muslim organizations, like AIMPLB, find the judgment incomplete and worry about misuse of active provisions.<\/li>\n    <li>Others support parts of the ruling but call for clearer safeguards.<\/li>\n    <li>Concerns remain about possible infringement on religious autonomy and property rights.<\/li>\n  <\/ul>\n\n  <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_are_the_major_takeaways_implications_going_forward\"><\/span>What are the major takeaways \/ implications going forward?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n  <ul>\n    <li>Reforms must undergo constitutional scrutiny, especially when they affect religious rights.<\/li>\n    <li>The five-year practice rule is paused and cannot be enforced until the final verdict.<\/li>\n    <li>The balance between state oversight and religious autonomy is being tested.<\/li>\n    <li>Waqf Boards, donors, and administrators must act with caution given the ongoing litigation.<\/li>\n  <\/ul><br>\n<hr>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction On 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order examining the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the Court refused to grant a blanket suspension of the statute, thereby reaffirming the presumption of constitutionality attached to parliamentary enactments, it simultaneously recognised that certain provisions raised serious prima<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":263,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[91],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-8767","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-personal-laws","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/263"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}