Supreme Court Interim Stay on Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025

The SC passed an interim order staying select provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, while refusing to impose a blanket stay on the entire entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

• Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Passed in the Parliament in April 2025, proposes significant changes to the governance and management of Waqf properties in India. This legislation seeks to amend the Waqf Act of 1995.
• Challenge to the Act
  • Petitioners: The case was brought by several political leaders and organisations. In total, around 65 petitions were clubbed together before the Supreme Court.
  • Grounds of Challenge: The petitioners argued that the law violates Article 26 of the Constitution (the right to manage religious affairs) and encroaches upon the Muslim community’s autonomy in administering Waqf properties.

Key Provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025

• Renamed as UMEED: The Act has been renamed as the UMEED Act, which stands for ‘Unified Management Empowerment Efficiency and Development’.

• Trusts Excluded from Waqf: It establishes a legal separation between trusts and Waqfs, ensuring that trusts created by Muslims do not fall under Waqf regulations if they are governed by other statutory provisions related to public charities.
• Composition of Waqf Boards/Councils: Mandates at least two non-Muslim members in State Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council.
  • Two Muslim women members are required in Waqf Boards.
  • Representation from Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Aghakhani, and OBC Muslim communities is also mandated. 
• Eligibility for Waqf Dedication: Only practicing Muslims (for at least five years) can dedicate their property to Waqf.
• Abolishes “Waqf by user”: Waqf Amendment Act eliminates the ‘Waqf by user’ provision, which previously allowed properties to be designated as Waqf solely based on their long-term use for religious activities. 
  • All waqf-by-user properties registered before the Act’s enactment will retain their status, except for those involved in disputes with the government
• Survey of Waqf Properties: Replaces Survey Commissioner with District Collector (or higher-ranking officer) to verify Waqf properties.
  • If identified as Waqf, ownership reverts to the government after the Collector’s inquiry.
• Dispute Resolution: Removes the requirement of an expert in Muslim law; now comprises a judicial officer + government officer.
  • Tribunal decisions can be challenged in High Courts within 90 days of receiving the tribunal’s order (Removes finality clause).
• Transparency Measures: Requires mandatory registration of Waqf properties within 6 months to enhance transparency.
  • Waqf institutions earning more than ₹1 lakh per year must undergo state-appointed audits for financial accountability.
• Applicability of the Limitation Act: Earlier law (1995 Act)  had specifically excluded the application of the Limitation Act, which allowed Waqfs to act against encroachments on their properties without any time limit.
  • Amendment (2025 Act): The 2025 law removed this exemption, meaning legal claims against encroachment must be made within a specific period.

Supreme Court’s  interim order

Significance of the Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

• Judicial Check on Executive Overreach:  The Court stayed provisions that gave district collectors and revenue officers sweeping powers to decide Waqf property titles. 
  • This reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers and ensured that property disputes remain within judicial or quasi-judicial forums rather than the executive.
• Protection of Minority Rights: By capping non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards and pausing the five-year Muslim practice rule, the Court safeguarded the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious affairs under Article 26. 
  • This prevents dilution of minority control over their religious endowments.
• Balance Between Community and Public Interest: The order allows Waqfs to retain property status during disputes while preventing alienation or third-party transactions until tribunals decide. 
  • This ensures that public land is not encroached upon, while Waqf institutions like mosques, schools, and hospitals are not paralysed by executive action.
• Exceptional Nature of Relief: Interim stays on parliamentary laws are rare since laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. 
  • The Court’s intervention signals that the challenged provisions are prima facie arbitrary or inconsistent with constitutional principles, making this a notable check on legislative overreach.

Why the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 is Needed?

• Curbing Mismanagement & Corruption: Waqf Boards manage 8.7 lakh properties (9.4 lakh acres, worth ~₹1.2 lakh crore), but annual revenue is just ₹126 crore due to:
  • Encroachment: 7% of Waqf lands are illegally occupied.
  • Fraudulent claims: Private/govt lands wrongfully declared Waqf (e.g., 123 Delhi properties in 2013).
• Resolving Legal Ambiguities: The 1995 Act had loopholes:
• • “Waqf by user”: Properties became Waqf based on usage, even without ownership proof (e.g., temples/churches claimed as Waqf).
  • No time limits to reclaim encroached land (unlimited litigation).
• Protecting Government & Tribal Lands: Waqf Boards often claimed govt/tribal lands (e.g., ASI-protected sites, railway land).
• Empowering Marginalized Groups: Waqf income rarely reached intended beneficiaries (orphans, widows, poor Muslims).
• Modernizing Dispute Resolution: The dispute resolution process under the old Act was often slow and inefficient, with cases dragging on for years. 
• Aligning with Global Best Practices: UAE, Indonesia, and Bangladesh include non-Muslim experts in Waqf governance for efficiency.
• Economic Potential
  • Sachar Committee (2006): Estimated Waqf assets could generate ₹12,000 crore/year if managed well (vs. current ₹126 crore).

Key Concerns 

• Violation of Religious Freedom (Article 26): While the Supreme Court capped non-Muslim representation, concerns remain that even limited inclusion could dilute the Muslim community’s autonomy in managing religious endowments.
  • By contrast, Hindu and Sikh trusts are run exclusively by adherents of their faith.
• Ownership rights of non-Muslims: By denying a non-Muslim owner of properties the right to create a waqf, the Act infringes the ownership rights of non-Muslims.
  • An owner is free to do whatever he wants with his property, including destroying or alienating it the way he or she wants.
• Dilution of Muslim Representation through State Control: State governments retain the power to nominate Waqf Board members instead of community elections, opening the door to political influence.
• Threat to Existing Waqf Properties: The Supreme Court has stayed provisions that would strip properties of Waqf status during inquiries, protecting institutions from sudden disruption.
  • However, abolition of “Waqf by use” has been upheld prospectively, raising fears that undocumented historical Waqf lands without deeds may lose recognition.
• Undermining Waqf Tribunals: Tribunals still risk lacking experts in Islamic jurisprudence, potentially leading to misinterpretation of Sharia-based disputes like family Waqfs (waqf-alal-aulad).
  • The interim order did not touch this concern.

Way Forward for Effective Implementation

• Balanced Representation and Safeguards: Retain the Supreme Court’s caps on non-Muslim membership but ensure Muslim majority control in all Waqf bodies.
  • Make appointments transparent, with input from community leaders and scholars.
• Strengthened Dispute Resolution: Ensure Waqf Tribunals include experts in Muslim personal law to protect Sharia-compliant rulings and Introduce fixed timelines for inquiries to avoid indefinite disputes.
• Transparency and Accountability: Use digital systems to track Waqf finances and prevent corruption, but with strong data protection norms.
  • Independent audits should ensure credibility without compromising privacy.
• Preventing Political Interference: Frame clear guidelines for government nominations to minimize partisan control.
  • Introduce community election mechanisms wherever feasible to preserve autonomy.
• Awareness and Capacity Building: Educate Mutawallis, beneficiaries, and officials about new legal obligations and rights under the amended Act and SC directions.
  • Capacity building can reduce misuse and arbitrary implementation.
• Parity Across Religious Endowments: Ensure governance reforms apply consistently to all major religious trust systems.
  • Equal treatment will reduce perceptions of bias and enhance acceptance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interim order ensures that the Act is not halted entirely, but its contentious provisions are checked. The final verdict will determine whether the reforms can strike a balance between government oversight and religious freedom, shaping the future of religious endowments in India’s constitutional democracy.