How the Supreme Court’s Order Impacts Waqf Law in India

Why in the News?

On 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court issued an interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While it refused to suspend the entire law, it stayed several contentious clauses that affected property rights and minority protections. The Bench, led by CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, said some provisions needed further judicial scrutiny as they could impinge on Muslims’ right to manage religious endowments.

Background

• Waqf: Under Islamic law, a waqf is a permanent dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes.
• Legislative history:
  • Waqf Act, 1995 → governed the administration of waqf properties.
  • The 2025 Amendment, notified in April, was projected as a reform to improve accountability, prevent encroachments, and digitise waqf records.
• Challenge: Political leaders and organisations (e.g., Asaduddin Owaisi, Mahua Moitra, CPI, YSR Congress) argued that the new law infringed Articles 26 & 30 (right to manage religious affairs and minority institutions).

Features of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

• Empowered District Collectors to inquire if the disputed land was waqf or government property.
• Introduced a five-year practice requirement: only a person who has been practising Islam for five years and owns the property could create a waqf.
• Permitted non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards; removed the requirement that their CEOs be Muslim.
• Abolished the doctrine of “waqf by user.”
• Mandated central digital registration of waqf properties.
• Applied the Limitation Act, 1963, to waqf disputes.

Challenges Raised in Court

• Violation of Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs).
• Arbitrary powers to District Collectors over ownership disputes (should lie with courts/tribunals).
• The five-year practice rule allegedly policed personal faith.
• Non-Muslim participation on boards was said to dilute minority management rights under Article 30.
• Abolishing “waqf by user” threatened historic endowments.
  

Supreme Court’s Interim Directions

Provisions Stayed

• Section 3C: powers of District Collectors to decide waqf/government ownership & alter revenue records.
• Clause divesting property of waqf status once the inquiry began.
• Five-year “practising Islam” requirement suspended until rules for verification are framed.

Cap introduced:

• Max 4 non-Muslims on the 22-member Central Waqf Council.
• Max 3 non-Muslims on State Waqf Boards.

Provisions Allowed to Operate

• Abolition of “waqf by user” (prospectively).
• Mandatory digital registration of properties.
• Application of the Limitation Act to waqf property recovery.
• The requirement that only the owner of the property can dedicate it as a waqf.

Challenges & Concerns

• Religiosity test: deciding if someone has “practised Islam for five years” risks state intrusion into private faith.
• Executive overreach: Collector’s role in property disputes could weaken judicial oversight.
• Minority autonomy: non-Muslim representation, if excessive, may erode Article 30 protections.
• Historic endowments: loss of “waqf by user” may affect longstanding community properties.
• Implementation gaps: need clear procedures, trained staff, and updated revenue records.

Way Forward

• Frame transparent rules to verify eligibility for creating a waqf without infringing privacy or faith.
• Limit executive powers; disputes should primarily go to Waqf Tribunals / High Courts.
• Keep non-Muslim representation consultative, not supervisory.
• Balance accountability (digital registry, audits) with community autonomy.
• Protect heritage and tribal lands through statutory safeguards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interim order seeks a middle path – protecting minority rights while retaining measures for transparency and preventing encroachments. The final verdict will decide the constitutional balance between state oversight and religious self-governance in managing waqf properties.