New Delhi A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India took up the petitions challenging the recently passed Waqf Amendment Act 2025 over two days on April 16 – 17, and passed an interim order on Thursday.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan refused to grant an interim stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but directed that there should be no alteration in the character of any Waqf property, including those registered or declared under the practice of 'waqf by user'.
The court gave the Centre seven days to respond to pleas for stay of the provisions of the Act, and allowed petitioners five days thereafter to file a rejoinder. Accordingly, the case will be heard on May 5.
Several constitutional issues regarding the Act were raised during arguments. The two key issues brought up by the petitioners with the 2025 Amendment law were the omission of ‘Waqf by user,’ and the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards.
Petitioners argued that the amendments were discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violated their fundamental rights. Concerns were raised about the new requirement for registration of Waqf properties, which could invalidate properties recognized as Waqf by long-standing usage. The inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Waqf Boards and Council was contested as undermining the community’s autonomy. The petitioners also feared that the amendments would increase government control over Waqf properties, potentially leading to misuse.
Senior advocates for the petitioners Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and CU Singh put up the argument that the law infringed on religious freedom, mandated unconstitutional tests of faith, and threatened bureaucratic meddling in Waqf properties.
The Bench questioned the inclusion of non-Muslims within Muslim religious organizations and also directed that that properties declared as Waqf by courts or through long-standing usage (Waqf by user) should not be de-notified till the next hearing. The court stated that all members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council, except ex-officio members, must be Muslims.
The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, defended the amendments, stating that they addressed widespread grievances from the public about the misuse of Waqf properties. He emphasized that the amendments underwent legislative oversight and were the result of extensive consultations at the parliamentary panel and in debates on the floor of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The Central government argued that the amendments aimed to balance the interests of the community with broader public concerns.
The Centre termed the issue “serious” and sought a week to file its response, informing the court that it will not implement certain contentious provisions of the 2025 Act for the time being,
The interim order of the Supreme Court on Thursday noted the assurance given by the Solicitor General in this regard and stated: “During course of hearing SG Mehta states that the respondents would like to file a short reply within 7 days and assured that till next date no appointment shall take place to board and councils under 2025 Act. He also assures that waqfs including waqf by user already declared by notification or gazetted, their status shall not be changed.”
The court’s interim order maintains the status quo on the operation of certain provisions of the Act while the matter is under judicial review, while protect the rights of the Muslim community and also addressing concerns about misuse and governance of Waqf properties.
Legal and Political Reactions
The interim order has drawn sharp reactions from across India’s legal and political spectrum, with many expressing concern over its constitutional implications and impact on minority rights.
Legal Experts Voice Alarm
Senior Supreme Court advocate M.R. Shamshad remarked, “This is not just about administrative control. It’s a larger constitutional issue about religious freedom and community autonomy. The amendments open the gates for arbitrary state interference in religious endowments.” He further warned that such changes may be in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which safeguard the right to manage religious affairs.”
Former Chief Justice (Retd.) A.M. Ahmadi (earlier in a related comment on Waqf issues) had noted that, “Waqf properties have a unique legal status. Any sweeping control without community consultation may not withstand judicial scrutiny.”
Politicians Raise Concerns
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi fiercely criticized the order in Parliament, stating, “This is not reform, it is targeted dismantling. Waqf properties are deeply tied to our religious and social life. This law, if enforced without checks, will lead to social instability.”
Owaisi told ANI: “We consider this Act unconstitutional. The court has said that the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Council will not be constituted till the next hearing, and 'Waqf by user' cannot be deleted.”
“During the deliberations of the JPC, I gave a report opposing all amendments proposed by the government, and during the debate on the bill," he added.
Finally, Owaisi affirmed that the legal challenge to the Act is “far from over.”
K. Rahman Khan, former Union Minister for Minority Affairs and key figure in earlier Waqf reforms, said in an interview: “This government has brought the bill with vengeance. It is not reform—it is retribution driven by ‘Islamophobia’.”
Maulana Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi, Islamic scholar and community leader, said: “The bill is communal in spirit and letter. It violates the constitutional ethos of secularism and pluralism. We sent over 5 crore representations, but the government remained unmoved.”
Lawmakers Stand by the Bill
Union Minister Giriraj Singh, defending the amendment in Parliament, stated: “The Waqf Board will function according to the law. No one, no institution, no religion is above the Constitution. This is about transparency and accountability.”
Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, responding to opposition in the Rajya Sabha, maintained, “The amendment does not intend to seize religious rights but to ensure that Waqf properties are managed lawfully, and not misused under the guise of religion.”
Judicial Oversight and Interim Observations
The interim order, while not final, signals the judiciary’s intent to examine the constitutionality of the law. In its remarks, the bench noted that “the rights of minorities and their institutions are a foundational element of our constitutional fabric and must be respected when laws are framed.”
Tushar Gupta, a Senior Journalist and a Political Analyst, in a commentary on the 2025 Amendment writes: “Contrary to popular belief, the Waqf Amendment Act is not solving or creating a religious problem, but improving the real estate situation in this country... The dilution of the power of the Waqf boards, given a free run under the previous governments, was necessary while respecting their cultural sensitivities…”
The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 continues to be a flashpoint of legal and social discourse in India, and as noted by the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing, sparked law and order incidents, especially in the West Bengal district of Murshidabad where the violence on April 11 and 12 resulted in three deaths and hundreds were left homeless.
Salient points of the Interim Order
- The Union Government assured the court that no appointments would be made to the Waqf Council or Waqf Boards under Sections 9 and 14 of the Act until further notice.
- Properties recognized as Waqf by courts or through long-standing usage (Waqf by user) should not be de-notified.
- Waqf properties under dispute as government land must retain their Waqf status during any inquiry.
- The court reinforced that all members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council, except ex-officio members, must be Muslims.
- A directive was issued to maintain the status quo concerning certain provisions of the Act until judicial review is completed.
(With input from Amit Deshmukh)
