India’s Supreme Court has issued an interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 that neither freezes the entire statute nor leaves Muslim endowments exposed to summary executive action. The Bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih declined a blanket stay but put guardrails around some of the Act’s most contentious features while the constitutional challenges proceed.
What the Court actually ordered
- No blanket stay on the Act. The Court reiterated the presumption of constitutionality and refused to suspend the law wholesale at the interim stage.
- Five-year “practising Islam” clause paused—pending rules. The new definition of “waqf” required the donor to show they had practised Islam for at least five years. The Court stayed that specific phrase until States frame a clear, workable mechanism to determine it—explicitly to avoid arbitrary enforcement.
- Collector-led title shortcuts curbed. The Court stayed the proviso to Section 3C(2) (which would have stripped a property of its waqf status merely because an inquiry began) and also stayed Sections 3C(3)–(4) (which let a designated officer trigger corrections in revenue and Waqf Board records). Title questions must be adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal, not decided conclusively through an administrative route.
- Status-quo protection with a caveat. Until a Tribunal’s final decision (and subject to High Court orders on appeal), no dispossession of waqf properties and no alteration of revenue or Board records. During a 3C inquiry, however, no third-party rights may be created. This freezes the battlefield while due process runs its course.
- Composition guardrails. Non-Muslim members are capped at 4 of 22 in the Central Waqf Council and 3 of 11 in State Waqf Boards. The Court did not bar a non-Muslim CEO in law, but urged that “as far as possible” the CEO (ex-officio Secretary) be appointed from the Muslim community.
What the Court left standing (for now)
- Abolition of “waqf by user” (prospective): the Bench did not stay the change; citing misuse concerns, it found no prima facie arbitrariness in the deletion.
- Limitation Act now applies: the Court did not interfere with the provision that brings waqf disputes within ordinary limitation periods.
- Protected monuments: the Court refused to stay Section 3D—which voids any declaration that treats ASI-protected monuments/areas as waqf—while noting customary religious practices can continue under the monuments law.
Independent explainers and legal trackers have summarised the same split relief: targeted stays plus structural “guardrails”, with the rest of the reform continuing unless and until struck down on final hearing.
Who “won” what?
Wins for Muslim petitioners and waqf institutions
- Due-process shield: Wa qf properties are protected from dispossession and record-tampering until a Tribunal decides title—preventing irreversible harm while litigation plays out.
- Check on executive overreach: The Court suspended the machinery that let a designated officer both de-waqf property during an inquiry and rewrite records—a separation-of-powers point the Bench underscored.
- Relief on religious-qualification test: The five-year practice clause is on hold unless States frame clear rules to administer it fairly.
- Community representation: Numerical caps ensure non-Muslim members cannot form a majority in waqf bodies pending final adjudication.
Unsurprisingly, several Muslim organisations welcomed the partial stays as meaningful interim relief—though others, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, called the order “incomplete” because the broader law continues.
Wins for the Union Government
- Law not paralysed: The Act remains in force, except for stayed clauses. This preserves the government’s reform agenda during litigation.
- Key structural changes survive—for now: The Court left untouched the prospective abolition of waqf-by-user and the application of the Limitation Act, both central to the government’s case for curbing misuse and streamlining disputes.
- Monuments protected: The refusal to stay Section 3D aligns with heritage-protection objectives and the AMASR framework.
Does the ruling reflect well on the judiciary?
Yes—on process, restraint and institutional balance. Three features stand out:
- Judicial minimalism with real safeguards. Rather than a blunt, across-the-board freeze—or total deference—the Court identified precise pressure points (religious-status verification; executive short-circuiting of title) and tailored remedies to prevent irreparable harm. That is classic interim-stage discipline.
- Separation of powers. By insisting that Tribunals, not revenue officers, finally decide title, the Court reaffirmed core constitutional architecture while letting Parliament’s broader policy choices operate pending a merits ruling.
- Pluralism with clarity. Capping (not excluding) non-Muslim membership balances inclusivity claims against minority self-governance concerns—again, an interim, proportionate approach rather than a bright-line veto.
Reasonable observers will still differ on substance: supporters of the petitions will worry that leaving waqf-by-user and limitation intact could structurally weaken historical endowments; reformers will argue those very changes are overdue. But as an institutional performance, the order is measured, transparent, and reasons-driven. On that score, the judiciary comes out looking steady and credible.
What to watch next
- State rules on the five-year clause—these will determine if, when, and how that stay lifts.
- Merits hearing on constitutionality, where the Court’s prima facie views at the stay stage will not bind the final outcome.
Reporting based on the Supreme Court’s interim judgment (15 Sept 2025) and corroborated explainers.
