Introduction
On September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered an interim order on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the Court refused to suspend the entire Act, it stayed certain contentious provisions pending a full constitutional review. The case highlights the tension between State regulation of religious endowments and the fundamental rights of minorities under Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution.
What is Waqf and Why
Does it Matter?
●
Waqf: A
charitable endowment under Islamic law where property is dedicated for
religious or philanthropic purposes.
●
Significance: India
has over 8 lakh registered waqf properties, making it one of the world’s
largest waqf asset bases.
●
Law: Governed
by the Waqf Act, 1995, which was amended in 2025 to introduce reforms aimed at
transparency and accountability.
Key Features of the
Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
●
Five-year
practice rule: Only a person practising Islam for at least 5 years can
create waqf.
●
Collector’s
powers: District Collectors empowered to decide ownership disputes and
alter revenue records.
●
Non-Muslim
representation: Provision for non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards and the
Central Waqf Council.
●
Other reforms:
○
Derecognition of “waqf by user.”
○
Mandatory digital registration of waqf properties.
○
Application of the Limitation Act, 1963, to waqf lands.
Grounds of Challenge
Petitioners—including
political leaders and community organisations—argued that:
●
The Act violates Article 26 (right to manage religious
affairs) and Article 30 (minority rights to administer institutions).
●
The five-year practice requirement is arbitrary and
infringes religious freedom.
●
Vesting executive officers with property dispute powers
undermines judicial independence.
●
Non-Muslim participation on Waqf Boards dilutes
minority self-governance.
What Did the Supreme
Court Decide?
Provisions Stayed
(suspended)
1. Collector’s powers: Section 3C giving
District Collectors authority to decide waqf ownership disputes.
○
Court held title questions must be decided by
judicial/quasi-judicial bodies.
2. Automatic divestment: Clause removing waqf
status once an inquiry begins.
○
Found “prima facie arbitrary.”
3. Five-year practice rule: Requirement to be
a practising Muslim for 5 years before creating waqf.
○
Suspended until the Centre frames rules on how this
would be verified.
4. Non-Muslim representation cap:
○
Central Waqf Council capped at 4 non-Muslim members
(out of 22).
○
State Waqf Boards capped at 3 non-Muslim members (out
of 11).
Provisions Allowed to
Operate (upheld for now)
●
Abolition of
waqf by user: Court accepted it was often misused to claim government
lands.
●
Digital
registration of waqf properties: Upheld for transparency.
●
Application of
Limitation Act: Waiving the exemption ensures parity with other properties.
Broader Implications
for Minority Rights
●
Judicial Oversight Restored: Stopping executive control
over property disputes safeguards the separation of powers.
●
Religious Autonomy vs State Oversight: The five-year
practice rule (though stayed) raises concerns about the State policing
religious identity.
●
Minority Institution Autonomy: Capping non-Muslim
representation tempers State intervention but doesn’t fully resolve the debate
over Article 30 rights.
●
Balance of Interests: By allowing reforms on
transparency but staying intrusive provisions, the Court signals an attempt to
balance accountability with autonomy.
●
Future of Waqf Jurisprudence: The final judgment could
reshape how waqf institutions are regulated, with ripple effects on other
minority-managed religious trusts and endowments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 represents a measured approach—upholding reforms for transparency while maintaining provisions that threaten minority rights and judicial independence. The final verdict will be crucial in defining the contours of religious freedom, minority autonomy, and State regulation of religious property in India.
For more such Articles and Blogs, visit us