On September 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a highly anticipated interim verdict on the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, a law that has ignited passionate debate and protest across the country. The Court’s decision, which paused some of the Act’s most controversial provisions but left the bulk of the amendments in place, has drawn a chorus of reactions from political leaders, religious authorities, and community organizations, each reflecting the deep sensitivities at play when law, faith, and property intersect in India’s diverse democracy.
The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, introduced by the current NDA government, sought to overhaul the management and administration of waqf properties—charitable endowments made by Muslims for community benefit. These properties, ranging from centuries-old mosques and shrines to graveyards and schools, have long been governed by the Waqf Act, 1995, which established State-level waqf boards and a Central Waqf Council to oversee their use and protection. The government justified the sweeping changes by citing a need for greater transparency and accountability, but many in the Muslim community saw the amendments as an encroachment on their religious autonomy.
According to The Assam Tribune, the Supreme Court’s two-judge bench took a measured approach. While refusing to strike down the entire Act—a move reserved for the “rarest of cases”—the Court paused certain clauses that it deemed could lead to arbitrary or unconstitutional outcomes. Notably, it struck down the provision allowing the government to unilaterally determine the rights of waqf property, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. The Court also stayed the requirement that waqifs (those creating a waqf) prove they have been practising Islam for five years, finding no fair mechanism for such a determination and warning it could result in arbitrary exclusion.
However, the Court stopped short of granting the full relief sought by petitioners. It declined to halt the entire Act, arguing that the presumption of constitutionality stands unless a clear prima facie case is made against the law as a whole. Instead, the Court focused on specific provisions that were most likely to cause immediate harm or violate constitutional safeguards. For example, it allowed the controversial clause permitting non-Muslims to serve on waqf boards to remain, but capped their numbers at four in the 22-member Central Waqf Council and three in the 11-member State Boards—a compromise intended to balance inclusivity with the boards’ religious character.
This partial relief was welcomed by some, but for others, it fell far short. According to Kashmir Media Service, Prof. Jawahirullah, chief of the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), lambasted the verdict as inadequate and discriminatory. He highlighted that the BJP government had introduced a staggering 44 formal amendments—comprising 33 insertions, 45 substitutions, and 37 deletions, for a total of 115 changes. Despite these sweeping revisions, the Supreme Court had stayed only a handful of provisions, leaving what he called “regressive and unconstitutional” elements untouched. Prof. Jawahirullah took particular issue with the inclusion of non-Muslims on waqf boards, arguing, “If outsiders to the Hindu or Sikh faiths cannot serve on their respective boards, mandating non-Muslims on Waqf Boards is discriminatory.”
He also criticized the Court for failing to reinstate three key sections from the original Act: Section 104, which allowed non-Muslims to create waqf; Section 107, which exempted waqf property recovery from the Limitation Act, 1963; and Section 108, which dealt with special provisions for evacuee waqf properties. “The failure to reinstate Sections 107 and 108 indirectly facilitates hostile state governments in seizing Waqf properties,” Prof. Jawahirullah warned, calling the Amendment Act a “deliberate conspiracy to weaken and usurp Waqf properties,” and demanding its full repeal in favor of the 2013 Act.
Voices from Kashmir echoed these concerns, with religious and political leaders urging the Supreme Court to go further. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, asserted in a statement carried by The Economic Times that while the partial relief was a “good indication,” it was ultimately inadequate. The MMU warned that the abolition of the long-recognized principle of “waqf by user”—which protected properties used for religious purposes over generations, even without formal deeds—threatened the very existence of historic mosques, shrines, and graveyards. They argued that requiring mandatory waqf deeds disregarded the realities of lost or nonexistent documents, risking the loss of sacred status for countless sites.
The MMU also decried the transfer of survey powers from independent commissioners to district collectors, arguing this shift compromised neutrality and handed excessive control to the state. “Waqf is not merely about property but about religious trust and service to Allah. Any attempt to dilute Muslim control over these sacred endowments or to erode their historic protection is unacceptable to the community and is against the principles enshrined in the constitution, which grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own religious affair,” the MMU stated. They called on the Supreme Court to expedite a final hearing and safeguard both constitutional and religious rights.
Political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir also weighed in. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah praised the Supreme Court for taking “good steps in the right direction,” but insisted that “other objectionable parts of the Act need to be removed as well.” He noted, “People of only one religion and their institutions and properties were targeted through this Act. SC has understood this. If they remove other objectionable parts from the Act, it would be good.” Waheed-ur Rehman Parra, a People’s Democratic Party MLA, questioned the rationale for imposing non-Muslim members on waqf boards when no such requirement exists for other religious bodies. He also challenged the government’s authority to determine who qualifies as a “practising Muslim,” stating, “Faith is a matter of conscience and can never be subjected to government stamps.”
Amid these critiques, some prominent religious leaders offered a more optimistic view. Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, the Grand Mufti of India, welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention as “a truly hopeful development for all citizens who believe in the democratic fabric of our nation,” according to a statement reported by Kashmir Media Service. He praised the Court for freezing key clauses that threatened “the sacred autonomy, character, and transparent functioning of Waqf institutions,” and for upholding “the rule of law and the rights of minorities.” The Grand Mufti called for calm, constructive dialogue, and trust in the ongoing judicial process, urging all stakeholders to “act with wisdom and restraint as this matter proceeds.”
As the legal and political wrangling continues, the fate of India’s waqf properties—and the broader question of religious autonomy—remains unresolved. The Supreme Court’s interim verdict, while a significant milestone, has left many questions open and passions running high. With both sides vowing to continue their advocacy, all eyes now turn to the Court’s final judgment, which will shape the future of waqf governance and, perhaps, the contours of religious freedom in India for years to come.
