Supreme Court’s Interim Order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: A Detailed Analysis

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has generated intense debate in India, with questions about constitutional rights, state control over religious property, and the balance between secular governance and minority protection. On 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important interim order on multiple petitions challenging the Act. The judgment neither struck down the entire law nor gave it a free pass; instead, the Court carefully weighed which provisions should operate and which needed to be paused until further scrutiny.

This article explains the background of the amendment, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, provisions that have been stayed, those that continue to operate, what happens when the District Collector investigates, and what this means for the future of Waqf administration in India.

Background of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

The Waqf Act is a central law that governs the management of properties dedicated for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic practice. Over the years, issues of transparency, misuse of property, and conflicts with state ownership have prompted demands for reform. The 2025 amendment introduced several major changes, many of which immediately came under challenge from community organisations, political parties, and concerned individuals.

Key amendments included:

  1. Five-year Islam practice requirement – Only a person who has practised Islam for at least five years can create a valid Waqf.
  2. Collector’s powers – District Collectors or designated officers were empowered to investigate whether a property claimed as Waqf is actually government land and to derecognize such property.
  3. Waqf Board composition – Non-Muslims could now be appointed to Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, with specified numbers.
  4. CEO appointment – The CEO of a State Waqf Board could be a non-Muslim.
  5. Waqf by user – The concept of Waqf arising simply from long-standing use was restricted, with existing waqf-by-user properties protected but future claims disallowed.

These changes raised serious constitutional questions, especially regarding Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, freedom of religion, and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

Supreme Court’s Interim Order: Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, took a cautious stance. The Court reminded all parties that Parliament enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, and therefore striking down or halting an entire law at the interim stage is rare. However, the Court did intervene selectively.

1. Entire Act Not Stayed

The Court refused to suspend the whole Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. It ruled that a blanket stay would disregard the legislature’s authority and the principle of separation of powers.

2. Five-Year Islam Practice Clause

The controversial provision requiring five years of practising Islam to create a Waqf was temporarily stayed. The Court noted that such a rule cannot be applied arbitrarily. It allowed the clause to remain in the law but directed that it will only take effect once State Governments frame detailed rules to clarify its meaning and procedure.

3. Collector’s Powers Curtailed

The Court stayed provisions that allowed the District Collector or designated officer to deregister waqf properties or correct revenue records before disputes are adjudicated. The justices warned against giving sweeping powers to the executive that could undermine judicial oversight. However, the Collector can still investigate claims; only final derecognition and revenue correction are suspended. This is explained in detail in later part of this article.

4. Non-Muslim Membership in Waqf Boards

The Court permitted non-Muslims to continue as members of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council but capped their numbers. Interim limits were set: not more than four non-Muslims in the Central Council and not more than three in a State Waqf Board. This ensures diversity without overwhelming Muslim representation.

5. Non-Muslim CEO Provision

The provision allowing a non-Muslim to be CEO of a State Waqf Board was not stayed. However, the Court added a guideline: “as far as possible” the CEO should be a Muslim, respecting the community’s religious character.

6. Waqf by User

The Court declined to interfere with the amendment removing the possibility of creating new waqf properties merely by long usage. It observed that since existing waqf-by-user properties remain protected, the change for future claims is not arbitrary.

What Happens When the Collector Investigates?

The Supreme Court drew a fine line between investigation and adjudication. Here’s how it works now under the interim order:

  1. Collector can investigate: The District Collector (or designated officer) may still conduct inquiries when a property is claimed as waqf or as government land. He can collect evidence, call for documents, hear parties, and prepare a report.
  2. Collector cannot derecognize: The Collector cannot de-register or derecognize a waqf property simply on the basis of his inquiry. That power has been stayed.
  3. No revenue record changes: The Collector’s report cannot directly alter ownership entries in land revenue records.
  4. No third-party rights: Until the dispute is resolved, no new leases, sales, or transfers can be created over such properties.
  5. Report forwarded: The findings of the Collector will act as a recommendation, which must then be placed before a Waqf Tribunal, civil court, or other judicial/quasi-judicial authority for final determination.

Step-by-Step Flow

  • Step 1: Claim arises (property asserted as waqf or government land).
  • Step 2: Collector investigates, records evidence, and prepares a report.
  • Step 3: Report submitted to the competent tribunal/court.
  • Step 4: Tribunal/court adjudicates and delivers binding verdict.
  • Step 5: Only after final adjudication can revenue records be corrected or property status changed.

This ensures that the Collector’s role is fact-finding, not final decision-making, preserving judicial oversight and protecting constitutional rights.

Constitutional Questions at Stake

The petitions argue that the amendment infringes upon minority rights. The Court’s interim order highlights some constitutional themes:

  • Right to Religion (Articles 25 & 26): Can the state impose a five-year condition on who may create a waqf? Does allowing non-Muslims in Waqf Boards interfere with the community’s right to manage its own institutions?
  • Equality Before Law (Article 14): Does giving extraordinary power to District Collectors to derecognize waqf properties violate equality and due process?
  • Right to Property (Article 300A): The derecognition powers raised concerns about deprivation of property without judicial oversight.

The Court clearly leaned toward safeguarding due process while recognising Parliament’s authority to reform institutions.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Order

  1. Law in Force, With Safeguards: Most provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 remain effective. This means Waqf Boards will undergo restructuring, “waqf by user” is abolished for the future, and rules about Board membership are already in play.
  2. Checks on Executive Power: By pausing Collector powers and insisting on rule-making for the five-year Islam clause, the Court has ensured that administrative authorities cannot act arbitrarily.
  3. Community Representation Balanced: The cap on non-Muslim members addresses concerns about dilution of Muslim leadership while also acknowledging inclusivity.
  4. Future Litigation Likely: The interim order does not settle the case. Final hearings will determine whether these provisions stand or are struck down. The petitions may expand into larger debates about the scope of religious freedom in a secular state.
  5. Signal to Parliament: The judgment sends a message that while reform is welcome, laws affecting fundamental rights must be carefully crafted with clear safeguards against misuse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is a measured compromise. It allows the government’s reform agenda to proceed but prevents arbitrary application of contentious provisions. The decision reflects the Court’s role as guardian of constitutional rights while respecting the legislature’s prerogative.

The ultimate verdict will have far-reaching implications—not just for the Muslim community and Waqf institutions, but also for how India balances minority rights, secular governance, and state authority over religious endowments. For now, the ruling ensures that community interests are not trampled while giving space for the Act to be tested in practice.

Comments are closed.