The Supreme Court has stopped the government from enforcing some parts of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, while making it clear that the entire law will not be put on hold.
A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih said on Friday that laws passed by Parliament are usually considered valid unless there are very strong reasons to stop them completely. “There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute, and only in the rarest of cases can the entire Act be stayed,” the court observed.
The judges, however, found that certain provisions of the new law could cause serious problems if they were allowed to operate right away. One such clause required a person to have practised Islam for at least five years to qualify in matters relating to Waqf. The bench said this condition could lead to arbitrary decisions until proper rules are framed.
Another clause that treated certain properties automatically as Waqf land was also paused. The court said this could unfairly affect ownership rights. It further stayed the provision that gave revenue officers and district collectors the power to decide who owns a property, noting that such authority clashed with the principle of separation of powers.
“The rights of properties will not be affected until the final decision is taken. No Waqf will be dispossessed of land until the title is settled,” the bench clarified.
The court also raised objections to the composition of Waqf Boards, ruling that the number of non-Muslim members should not go beyond four in the central board and three in state boards. In addition, it said that the ex-officio officer must belong to the Muslim community, a condition that had been removed by the amendment.
While the petitions had challenged the entire law as unconstitutional, the bench made it clear that such a broad claim was not justified at this stage. “We have gone through the legislative history of Waqf laws since the 1923 Act and considered the arguments carefully. A case has not been made out to stay the entire statute, but the specific sections under challenge require interim relief,” the order read.
The court’s interim ruling means these provisions will remain suspended until the case is finally decided.
