New Delhi, September 15, 2025: The Supreme Court on Monday, September 15, 2025, pronounced its interim orders on pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, staying certain contentious provisions while declining to interfere with others, including the mandatory registration requirement. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and comprising Justice A.G. Masih, observed that legislation enjoys a “presumption of constitutionality” and stays are granted only in rare cases. The court reserved its final judgment on the Act’s validity, heard over three days in May 2025.

The Act, notified on April 8, 2025, after Presidential assent on April 5, has been challenged by over 100 petitioners, including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Delhi AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and others, as a “creeping acquisition” of Muslim properties, violating Articles 14, 21, 25, and 26. The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended it as a measure to curb “rampant encroachments” on public and private lands, ensuring better management without infringing religious rights.

Key Interim Orders

CJI Gavai, pronouncing the verdict, noted that while the entire Act was challenged, only specific provisions warranted interim protection:

1. 5-Year Islamic Practice Condition (Section 3(1)(r)): Stayed until State Governments frame rules for determining if a person has practiced Islam for five years. The court acknowledged the provision’s intent to prevent misuse (e.g., conversions to evade debts) but found it arbitrary without a mechanism, risking “arbitrary exercise of power.”
2. De-Notification of Waqf Lands (Sections 3C(2), 3C(3), 3C(4)): Stayed the provison allowing government officers (e.g., District Collectors) to de-recognize waqf properties during encroachment disputes. The court held this violates separation of powers, as executives cannot adjudicate property rights. Until title disputes are resolved by Waqf Tribunals or courts under Section 83, disputed properties remain unaffected, and no third-party rights can be created. Revenue records and Waqf Board entries will not be altered pending final adjudication.
3. Non-Muslim Members in Waqf Bodies:
   • Central Waqf Council (Section 9): Limited to no more than four non-Muslims out of 20 members.
   • State Waqf Boards (Section 14): Limited to no more than three non-Muslims out of 11 members.
   • CEO of State Waqf Boards (Section 23): Not stayed, but the court directed that “as far as possible,” a Muslim should be appointed.

Provisions Not Stayed

The court declined to stay:

• Mandatory Registration: Noted as a pre-existing requirement since 1923 (and 1995-2013), it does not infringe rights and ensures transparency.
• Abolition of ‘Waqf-by-User’: For future waqfs, as it aligns with statutory recognition.
• Bar on Waqfs Over Scheduled Areas/Protected Monuments: No prima facie arbitrariness.
• Application of Limitation Act: To prevent stale claims.
• Restrictions on Waqf Creation: Only by Muslims, and limits on women members (up to two).
• Dilution of Waqf-alal-aulad (family waqfs) and appeals against Tribunal orders.

The orders are interim and based on a prima facie view, not precluding final arguments on constitutionality. Petitioners like Samastha Kerala Jamiat Ulama, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and DMK argued the Act enables executive overreach, invalidating historical waqfs (e.g., by user or court decree). The Centre countered that it promotes efficiency, women’s inheritance rights, and prevents mutawalli (manager) misuse, citing precedents that Article 26 does not confer absolute property rights.

In April 2025, a bench led by then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna secured the Centre’s undertaking not to alter waqf status during pendency. Six BJP-ruled states (Assam, Rajasthan, etc.) intervened in support, while Kerala backed the challenge. The verdict balances regulatory reforms with protections against arbitrary executive actions.