Supreme Court partially stayed and declined a blanket interim stay on the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025,

On 15-Sep-2025 the Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 202 and seeking Interim Stay on impugned Act., -petitions filed challenging the constitutional validly of the Act and how it is infringing upon fundamental rights and other constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution is challenged.

While it refuses to grant the blanket interim stay on the entire Act, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the strong presumption of constitutionality for legislative enactments, however, it recognized the prima facie arbitrariness and constitutional infirmities in certain provisions, and issued interim directions staying specific sections of the Act.

Mandatory Registration of Waqfs

in drawing the line that the requirement for mandatory registration of Waqfs has been a consistent feature across all Waqf enactments since 1923, the Apex Court found the new provisions for mandatory registration to be prima facie not arbitrary, especially with a six-month grace period and a "sufficient cause" proviso.

"Five-Year Islamic Practice" Requirement (Section 3(r)):

A person to "show or demonstrate that he is practicing Islam for at least five years" to create a Waqf was prima facie deemed not arbitrary, given historical instances of Waqf misuse for evading law. However, this provision stands stayed until the Central Government frames rules providing a mechanism for ascertaining this practice.

"Waqf by User" (Section 4(ix)(b))

Considering instances where the concept was allegedly misused for encroaching upon government and private properties, and its prospective application protects existing registered Waqfs the Supreme Court prima facie not considered it to be arbitrary. It further noted that Waqf creation fundamentally relies on the "owner" of a property creating it, reflecting Islamic tenets of charity from one's own wealth. The Court noted past misuse for encroachment but upheld the amendment’s prospective application, protecting existing registered Waqfs while emphasizing Waqf creation depends on ownership and intent.

Interim Stay on Government Property Provisions (Section 3C)

Section 3C(1) and (2) of the Act is upheld by the Apex Court, wherein the government property declared as Waqf shall not be deemed Waqf and allows for inquiry by a designated officer. However, the proviso to Section 3C(2), which stated that property would not be treated as Waqf until the inquiry report, was stayed as prima facie arbitrary.

On the Seperation of Powers:

Contrarty to the provisio in Sub-sections 3C(3) and 3C(4) -which allowed revenue officers to determine property title and direct corrections in revenue records- The Apex Court emphasized that determination of title of the property (Waqf or not) must be resolved by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority like the Waqf Tribunal, upholding the principle of separation of powers. Thus staued Sub-sections 3C(3) and 3C(4).

however, the Court directed that no third-party rights be created in such properties during the pendency of inquiry and tribunal proceedings under Section 3C, until final adjudication.

On the Representation in Waqf Bodies the Apex Court capped non-Muslim members at: 4 out of 22 in the Central Waqf Council, 3 out of 11 in State Waqf Boards.

Appointment of Chief Executive Officer (Section 23)

Refusing to grant any interim stay on Section 23, which allows for a non-Muslim Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Supreme Court observed that the CEO operates under the administrative control of the Board, where Muslims would retain a majority. However, the Apex Court held "we direct that as far as possible, an effort should be made to appoint the Chief Executive Officer of the Board who is the exofficio Secretary from amongst the Muslim community;".

The Section 107 of the Act speaks of application of the Limitation Act to Waqf properties and the Apex Court held that applying the Limitation Act, 1963, to Waqf properties was considered to remove previous discrimination and bring parity with other properties, thus prima facie not arbitrary.

Deletion of Sections 108 & 108A: Upheld as redundant or within Parliament’s powers.

In conclusion, speaking on the Interim Nature of the order The Supreme Court clarified its observations were limited to the interim stage. Final hearings will determine the constitutionality of the entire Act. These are only prima facie findings for interim relief. The validity of the provisions will be examined in detail during the final hearing.

Coram: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.