Supreme Court Halts Key Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order suspending the implementation of certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Central Government informed the Court that it would refrain from enforcing provisions related to the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, as well as the de-notification of properties previously declared as Waqf by the courts. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that these provisions would not be implemented for the time being.
The Court recorded the Solicitor General's assurance and acknowledged that no appointments to the Waqf Boards and Councils under the 2025 Act would take place until further orders. Additionally, the status of Waqf properties, including those declared by user or notification, will remain unchanged for now.
The Court granted the government a period of seven days to submit a reply to the petitioners' request for a stay on certain provisions of the Act. The petitioners are allowed to file their rejoinder within five days thereafter. The matter is set to be heard again on May 5 to decide on the interim relief.
This matter stems from a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Act was passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3, 2025, and by the Rajya Sabha on April 4, 2025. The amendments aimed to regulate Waqf properties, which are properties dedicated to religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law. The law received Presidential assent on April 5, 2025.
Several petitions, including those filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, challenge the amendment on the grounds of discrimination against Muslims. Petitioners argue that the changes infringe upon the community’s right to manage religious affairs independently and unfairly target Muslim religious endowments. Conversely, six BJP-ruled states—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have filed interventions in support of the amendment, emphasizing the potential impact on these states if the amendment is overturned.
At the heart of the challenge is the exclusion of 'Waqf by user' from the statutory definition of Waqf. Petitioners argue that this provision would strip away the religious character of historical mosques, graveyards, and charitable properties that have been in existence for centuries without formal Waqf deeds.
During hearings on April 16, the Supreme Court questioned the potential implications of the law, particularly with regard to structures predating colonial registration laws. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna raised concerns about whether documentary proof could even be produced for ancient structures such as the Jama Masjid.
The Court also expressed reservations about the broad powers granted to District Collectors to determine Waqf status in case of disputes. The Court questioned the fairness of empowering a district official to decide the status of Waqf properties, potentially leading to alterations of their legal status.
A highly contentious provision of the amendment is the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. CJI Khanna sharply questioned Solicitor General Mehta regarding this provision, drawing a parallel with Hindu religious endowment boards.
The Court also warned against the misuse of de-notification provisions, particularly in cases where Waqf status had been judicially declared in the past. CJI Khanna emphasized that historical declarations of Waqf status cannot be rewritten.
Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Rajeev Dhavan, argued for the petitioners, contending that the amendment violated fundamental rights and allowed undue state interference in religious matters. They pointed out that the mandatory registration of all Waqf properties could invalidate numerous historic Waqfs and was inconsistent with the principles upheld in the Ayodhya judgment.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the amendment, emphasizing that it was the result of extensive parliamentary debate. He argued that the registration requirement was not new and existed under the original Waqf Act, 1995. The Court, however, seemed unconvinced and indicated that it might issue an interim order to preserve the status quo.
After today's hearing, the Court reiterated that the status quo on Waqf properties would be maintained until further notice. The Court proposed that, for now, only ex-officio Muslim members should be appointed to the Waqf Boards and Council, and no Waqf properties declared judicially under the 1995 Act should be disturbed.
Solicitor General Mehta requested more time to file a comprehensive response, asserting that the law had been enacted after thorough deliberation. The Court, however, made it clear that certain provisions of the amendment, particularly those involving appointments and de-notifications, would be halted until further orders.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for May 5, 2025, to decide on the interim prayer for stay and further directions. In the meantime, the government has assured the Court that no appointments to the Waqf Boards and Councils will be made, and the status of Waqf properties will remain unchanged pending the Court’s final decision.