The Supreme Court of India is poised to deliver an interim order on Monday, September 15, 2025, following months of heated debate and mounting national attention over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The decision, reserved since May 22 after three days of intense arguments, could temporarily reshape the management of waqf properties and set a precedent for religious endowments across the country.
The legal showdown began earlier this year as a broad coalition—ranging from prominent political leaders to religious organizations and civil rights groups—filed a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment. Among the petitioners are MP Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM), Delhi AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, the Indian Union Muslim League, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and others. According to India Today and The Times of India, these groups argue the new law infringes on constitutional rights and undermines the religious and historical character of waqf institutions.
At the heart of the controversy are several sweeping changes introduced by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The legislation abolishes the principle of “waqf by user,” which previously allowed properties to be recognized as waqf based on longstanding community usage. Instead, only practising Muslims for at least five years may now create or dedicate waqf properties—a move that reverses a 2013 amendment which had opened the process to non-Muslims. The Act also introduces new powers for the government to resolve encroachment disputes, limits the creation of waqfs in scheduled areas, invalidates waqfs over properties protected by the Archaeological Survey of India, and applies the Limitation Act to waqf claims. Furthermore, it restricts waqf boards to a maximum of two women members and changes the appeals structure by making Waqf Tribunal orders appealable.
During the hearings, the petitioners’ legal team—led by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi—argued that these provisions violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution. As reported by NDTV and Hindustan Times, they described the Act as a "complete departure from historical legal and constitutional principles" and a mechanism to "capture waqf through a non-judicial process." The Kerala State Waqf Board, in its submission, labeled the law “unconstitutional,” “discriminatory,” and “subversive of secularism,” warning that it threatens the autonomy of religious institutions and the federal structure of the Constitution.
On the other side, the Union Government has staunchly defended the amendments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, insisted that the Act was passed after extensive consultations, including a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee with representatives from multiple political parties. The Ministry of Minority Affairs submitted a detailed affidavit exceeding 1,300 pages, asserting that the amendments comply with constitutional norms and are intended to bring greater transparency and administrative efficiency to the management of waqf properties. Mehta told the Court, "Three days of hearings had revealed no ex-facie evidence of unconstitutionality," cautioning that "mere legal propositions or hypothetical arguments do not justify halting the operation of a law duly enacted by Parliament." He further argued that waqf, while rooted in Islamic tradition, is a "secular concept" and not an essential part of Islam, thus not warranting constitutional protection as claimed by the petitioners.
The government’s position is also informed by concerns over the rapid expansion of waqf lands. The Centre’s affidavit highlighted a “shocking” 116 percent rise in waqf lands since the 2013 amendment, alleging that both private and public lands were being wrongly claimed as waqf, despite mandatory registration requirements dating back to 1923. According to The Times of India, the government believes that the new provisions are necessary to address misuse and irregularities in the system.
Yet, the petitioners remain unconvinced. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board accused the government of submitting false data and called for action against responsible officials. The Board also challenged the Centre’s assertion that the amendments do not impact essential religious practices, stating that the “Essential Religious Practices” test is constitutionally misplaced and disregards the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court’s interim order is expected to address three central concerns raised during the hearings. First, whether properties already declared as waqf by a court—whether through usage or formal deed—can be denotified while the matter is still being adjudicated. Second, the role of the District Collector during the enquiry process: under the new law, if the Collector is examining whether a property is waqf or government land, it is not to be treated as waqf land during the pendency of that enquiry. Third, the composition of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council—specifically, whether only Muslim members can be appointed, aside from ex-officio positions, and whether such restrictions are constitutionally valid.
In a bid to ease tensions and address concerns raised during earlier proceedings, the Centre made notable assurances to the Court. It stated that, while litigation is ongoing, no waqf property—whether notified, established by deed, or recognized by usage—will be denotified or have its character altered. Additionally, the government committed that no non-Muslim individuals would be appointed to Waqf Boards or the Central Waqf Council during this period.
The stakes are high. The Supreme Court’s order could temporarily suspend the implementation of some of the Act’s most contentious provisions until the constitutional questions are resolved. The decision may direct the government to maintain the status quo on waqf properties and administrative appointments, ensuring that no irreversible changes occur while the broader legal challenge unfolds.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was introduced by Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on August 28, 2024, and passed by Parliament with narrow margins—288-232 in the Lok Sabha and 128-95 in the Rajya Sabha. It was notified on April 5, 2025, after receiving the President’s assent. According to NDTV, the Act represents one of the most significant overhauls of waqf law in decades and has become a lightning rod for debates about religious freedom, minority rights, and property governance in modern India.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s interim order, the outcome will be closely watched not only by the Muslim community but by legal scholars, policymakers, and civil society at large. The ruling promises to influence the future of religious endowments and the delicate balance between faith, law, and state power in India.
