Middle Path: SC Balances Reforms with Minority Rights in Waqf Ruling📜

Supreme Court Partially Stays Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025⚖️

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to suspend the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety but stayed several contentious provisions until further judicial scrutiny. The order marks a significant moment in the debate over reforms to the regulation of Islamic charitable endowments.

Provisions Put on Hold🚫

• The power given to district collectors to unilaterally decide whether disputed property is waqf or government land.
• The stipulation that only practising Muslims of at least five years’ standing can create a waqf through a formal deed.

The bench clarified that the five-year requirement would not come into effect until the Centre and states frame rules for verifying adherence. Calling the collector’s powers “prima facie arbitrary”, the court ruled that disputes over waqf property must be adjudicated by judicial or quasi-judicial bodies such as waqf tribunals and high courts. Until such disputes are resolved, no third-party rights may be created in these properties by mutawallis (custodians).

Provisions Allowed to Operate✅

• Abolition of waqf by user (where property is deemed waqf solely because it has been used for religious purposes).
• A ban on declaring protected monuments or tribal lands as waqf.
• Mandatory registration of waqf properties on a central digital portal.
• Applicability of the Limitation Act to waqf disputes, ensuring time-bound litigation.

The judges noted that digital registration would enhance transparency and efficiency, while statutory time limits would prevent prolonged litigation.

On Waqf Councils and Boards🕌

The amended law permits non-Muslims to be appointed to waqf councils and boards. The court upheld this but imposed limits:

• The Central Waqf Council may have no more than four non-Muslim members.
• State waqf boards may have up to three non-Muslim members.

The bench also suggested—though did not mandate—that chief executive officers of state waqf boards should preferably be Muslims, considering the religious character of these institutions.

Observations on Religious Character📜 

The court reaffirmed that waqf is specific to Islam, and therefore, donations from non-Muslims cannot constitute waqf. It also stressed that lands belonging to Scheduled Tribes or notified as heritage sites are constitutionally and legally protected, and cannot be converted into waqf property.

Interim Relief, Not Final Verdict⚖️

In its 128-page order, the court stressed that legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, and suspension of statutory provisions should be rare. Adopting a “middle path”, it allowed most of the law to function while restraining provisions that could seriously affect property rights and minority protections.

“These are interim directions, pending final adjudication of constitutional challenges,” the bench clarified.

Legal and Political Responses👨‍⚖️

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, C.U. Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for the petitioners, arguing that the five-year requirement to create a waqf was arbitrary, lacked rational nexus, and violated religious freedom under Article 25. They also opposed the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf councils and challenged the empowerment of collectors to decide civil property disputes.

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the amendments as a long-overdue reform to bring transparency and accountability in the management of waqf lands—one of the largest pools of charitable property in India. It argued that digital registration would prevent encroachment and record loss, while collectors’ involvement would reduce tribunal backlogs.

The amendments, passed by Parliament in April 2025, had sparked strong opposition from Muslim organisations and parties such as the RJD, SP, and AIMIM, who accused the government of infringing upon religious freedoms.

The Supreme Court’s interim order triggered sharp political reactions. While Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju welcomed it as a validation of Parliament’s authority, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh hailed it as a “victory for those who opposed the law in Parliament and in the Joint Parliamentary Committee.”

                      Powered by #newsfuel