On Monday, September 15, 2025, India’s Supreme Court opted against a full stay on the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The court emphasized that a statute is generally presumed to be constitutional, and only in exceptionally rare cases would a complete stay be granted. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stated that the conditions for staying the entire act were not met.
Nevertheless, the Court did decide to suspend the implementation of several critical amendments within the waqf law. These provisions, specifically Sections 3, 9, 14, 23, 36, 104, 107, and 108, will remain frozen pending a thorough review of their legality and the historical context of waqf legislation, which dates back to 1923.
The Court clarified that its decision not to stay the entire act, along with any observations made in its judgment, would not prevent parties from mounting a comprehensive challenge against the entirety of the 2025 Amendment Act and all its provisions in the future.
Notably, Section 3, which previously required an individual intending to create a waqf to demonstrate at least five years of practicing Islam, has been temporarily stayed. Chief Justice Gavai highlighted that such a provision, without a clear mechanism or rules established by the Centre to prove a person’s five-year Muslim identity, would pave the way for arbitrary exercises of power.
Furthermore, the Court halted the enforcement of the proviso in Clause 2 of Section 3C. This proviso would have stripped a disputed waqf property of its status as a waqf asset if it was under investigation by a government-appointed officer, until that officer submitted their report. Petitioners argued that this section would give encroachers a free hand to dispute the authenticity of a waqf, thereby freezing its asset status.
The Court underscored that allowing a government official, such as a district Collector, to determine the rights associated with a waqf or its stakeholders would fundamentally contradict the principle of separation of powers. Chief Justice Gavai asserted that the executive branch should not be permitted to determine citizens’ rights in such proceedings.
The judgment ensures that no change in the status or position of a waqf property under inquiry will occur until the findings of designated officers achieve finality. Until a competent tribunal resolves the issue of a waqf property’s title, subject to potential further proceedings in the High Court, waqfs cannot be dispossessed, and no alterations can be made to revenue or court records. Additionally, no third-party rights can be created during the interim period of a pending title dispute.
Addressing concerns about representation, the court mandated that Muslims must constitute the majority on key waqf administrative bodies, including the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Specifically, the Central Waqf Council, as per Section 9, will have no more than four non-Muslim members out of a total of 20. Similarly, Waqf Boards, under Section 14, will be limited to a maximum of three non-Muslim members. The court also directed that states should make every effort to ensure that Chief Executive Officers of waqf boards, as outlined in Section 23, belong to the Muslim community.
Petitioners had previously voiced apprehension regarding the potential ‘subordination’ of Muslim members within waqf administrative structures by introducing non-Muslims. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi argued that no other religious endowments, whether Hindu or Sikh, permit members of different faiths to manage their temples or gurudwaras.
However, the Court’s initial assessment did not favor the petitioners’ arguments against the mandatory registration of waqfs by authorities. Chief Justice Gavai noted that registration has been a requirement since 1995, continuing until 2013, and that unregistered waqfs still have the option to register themselves.
The petitioners had characterized the mandatory registration requirement as a ‘creeping acquisition’ of Muslim properties by the government. They contended that the 2025 Amendment Act could invalidate unregistered waqfs-by-users, many of which are ancient and lack formal documentation. They further argued that the law imposed ‘arbitrary restrictions on waqf properties and their management, thereby undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community,’ infringing upon property rights under Article 300A and freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
In response, the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended registration as a necessary measure to combat ‘rampant encroachment’ on both public and private properties. Mr. Mehta highlighted that waqfs by user gained statutory recognition through earlier Waqf Acts, implying that a legislative policy could be altered by subsequent legislative action based on evolving societal circumstances. The Union Government maintained that the creation of waqfs for charity is not an essential tenet of Islam, and therefore, the amendments were constitutional. They argued that Articles 25 and 26, which protect minorities’ rights to manage their religious affairs, also allow for state regulation of secular activities related to religion, including the financial and property administration of religious endowments, to ensure transparency and accountability.