New Delhi: Petitioners have welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order on Monday staying certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, while refusing to suspend the law in its entirety. The apex court observed that several provisions required scrutiny, especially those that risked arbitrary application, and stayed them until final adjudication.

Petitioners hail interim relief

Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and a petitioner, expressed satisfaction over the order. “To a large extent, our point has been accepted. Our point on ‘Waqf by User’ has been accepted. Along with this, our point on protected monuments has also been accepted, that there will be no third-party claim,” he told ANI outside the court.

Advocate Anas Tanweer, another petitioner, called the order “balanced” and said it required careful examination. He emphasised that while the court had not stayed the entire Act, it had identified provisions such as the five-year condition for creating a Waqf that lacked a practical enforcement mechanism.

Arguments from the other side

Advocate Varuna Sinha, representing those who supported the amendments, clarified that the Centre’s changes were largely intact. “There is no stay on the amendments brought in by the central government. Only there is an interim order in favour of the petitioners regarding that they cannot be deprived of Waqf property without following due process,” she said.

She added that the order ensures any government action concerning Waqf properties must follow the procedure laid down in the Act, including adjudication by a tribunal and review by the High Court.

What the Supreme Court stayed

A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the interim directions. Key provisions stayed include:

  • The requirement that a person must be a practising Muslim for five years before creating a Waqf. The bench held this would otherwise lead to arbitrary exercise of power, as there is no mechanism to determine such status.
  • The provision authorising the Collector to adjudicate whether Waqf land had encroached upon government property. The court said this violated separation of powers, since such disputes must be decided by tribunals.
  • The provision restricting non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards and Councils, which the bench suspended temporarily.

The court further held that till adjudication by the tribunal takes place, no third-party rights can be created against contested Waqf properties.

Provisions left intact

The Supreme Court did not interfere with certain aspects of the Act, including mandatory registration of Waqf properties. The bench noted that registration requirements already existed under the Waqf Acts of 1995 and 2013, and were not novel to the 2025 amendment.

The bench also indicated that while the appointment of a Muslim CEO for Waqf Boards should be prioritised, it would not presently interfere with provisions relating to board composition.

Background of the case

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 April and the Rajya Sabha on 4 April, before receiving Presidential assent on 5 April. The amendments sparked sharp debates in Parliament, with opposition leaders accusing the government of targeting the Muslim community.

Multiple petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Act as arbitrary, discriminatory, and exclusionary. Petitioners included political leaders such as AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MPs Mohammad Jawed and Imran Pratapgarhi, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Azad Samaj Party president Chandra Shekhar Azad, SP MP Zia Ur Rehman Barq, DMK MP A Raja, as well as organisations including the AIMPLB, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, IUML, and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights.

Six BJP-ruled states, however, supported the amendments, arguing that they would prevent misuse of Waqf properties.

Conclusion

By staying contentious provisions while allowing the broader law to remain operational, the Supreme Court has attempted to balance community concerns, constitutional safeguards, and governance interests. The matter will undergo detailed adjudication in the coming months, and the final verdict will carry significant implications for the administration of Waqf properties in India.