“New Delhi, Sep 15, 2025 — In a landmark development, the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 Supreme Court case saw the apex court stay the law’s most contentious provisions while declining to suspend the legislation in its entirety.”
A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that courts only intervene in “the rarest of rare cases” and that a legislation by parliament has a presumption of constitutionality. However, the bench intervened so that provisions may not be abused which could impact property rights and freedom of religion.
What the Supreme Court Blocked under the Waqf Amendment Act 2025
The court suspended Section 3(r) which required only practicing Muslims of five years’ experience to pledge property as Waqf. It said there is no provision to verify religious practice, and therefore the clause is prone to arbitrary application.
It also suspended Section 3C, giving collectors and other officials with sweeping powers to determine the Waqf status of properties. Specifically, the bench suspended:
The clause denying Waqf status on the failure to produce a no-encroachment certificate.
Provisions authorizing officers to declare property as government land and alter records.
Instructions forcing Waqf Boards to alter records according to a collector’s inquiry.
The court ruled that such executive authority violates the doctrine of the separation of powers
Supreme Court of India | Indiahttps://www.sci.gov.in/
stressing that Waqf property disputes must be settled by tribunals and courts.
Petitioners argued the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 Supreme Court case highlights risks to religious freedom.”
On Waqf Boards and Membership
The bench allowed non-Muslims to be members of Waqf Boards but with a clause
Not more than 4 out of 20 in the Central Waqf Council
3 out of 11 in State Waqf Boards.
It also requested states to appoint Muslims as CEOs of Waqf Boards “so far as possible
Why It Matters
The Act, passed in April 2025, was defended by the government as an initiative aimed at curbing encroachment and keeping Waqf properties in check. Petitioners warned that it risked destroying religious endowments and vesting sweeping powers in bureaucrats.
Waqf properties are usually mosques, schools, or hospitals — dedicated to public good and legally untransferable. The court’s interim order ensures the safeguarding of these properties till a final judgment, while also establishing the sovereignty of Parliament in legislating.
The case now moves to technical hearings, which will decide if the law is constitutional and establish the tone as to how India navigates the intersection of government, property rights, and religion.
for more political news https://civiclens.in/politics
About the Author
