The Supreme Court of India has stepped squarely into the national spotlight with its recent interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, putting several contentious provisions on hold while the law’s constitutionality is scrutinized in depth. The decision, handed down on September 15, 2025, by a bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, has triggered a wave of political reaction and set the stage for a landmark debate on religious rights, property law, and the delicate balance between legislative intent and constitutional safeguards.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which sailed through the Lok Sabha on April 3, Rajya Sabha on April 4, and received the President’s assent just a day later, was quickly challenged in the Supreme Court. Petitions spearheaded by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi argued that the amendments unfairly targeted Muslim religious endowments and threatened the autonomy of the community’s institutions. Several state governments, meanwhile, lined up in support of the new law, underscoring the high political stakes and divided public opinion surrounding the legislation.
At the heart of the dispute are specific sections of the Act—particularly Sections 3(r), 3C, and 14—that, according to the petitioners, would have far-reaching consequences for the management and protection of waqf properties. The Supreme Court, after hearing all parties and delving into the legislative history dating back to the Waqf Act of 1923, made it clear that while a law passed by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality, courts must intervene when constitutional values appear at risk.
“We have held that presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases,” the bench stated in its order, as reported by PTI. The Court declined to stay the entire law, emphasizing that isolated problematic sections do not justify suspending the whole statute. Instead, it opted for what it described as a balancing act—staying only those provisions that appeared, at first glance, to be deficient or potentially harmful.
Among the most controversial provisions put on hold is Section 3(r), which would have required an individual to have been a practising Muslim for five years before dedicating property as waqf. The Court found this requirement unworkable in the absence of clear rules defining what constitutes a “practising Muslim.” It warned that, without such guidelines, the provision could lead to arbitrary exercises of power and undermine the very purpose of waqf endowments. Until state governments can frame appropriate rules, this section remains in abeyance.
Additionally, the Court stayed the proviso to Section 2(c), which sought to exclude certain properties from waqf status, and Section 3C, which empowered a designated officer—often the District Collector—to update revenue records and adjudicate rights over waqf land. The bench was particularly troubled by the idea that a revenue officer, rather than a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, could determine property titles. “The question of determination of the title of a property will have to, in our considered opinion, be resolved by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority,” the order stated, highlighting concerns about the separation of powers.
This move was welcomed by the Congress party, which has been vocal in its opposition to the amendment. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge asserted, “The BJP had sought to bulldoze a divisive law, designed solely to inflame communal passions and reopen issues that India had long settled. The Congress party stands firm in defending the rights of every citizen, without fear or favour, as guaranteed by our Constitution.” Kharge described the Supreme Court’s interim order as a reaffirmation of the resolve to protect minority rights, a cause he said the Opposition would continue to champion.
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh echoed this sentiment, calling the order “a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then ignored but now stand vindicated.” He highlighted that the Supreme Court had “stayed the powers of the Collector; protected existing waqf properties from dubious challenges; and stayed the provision requiring proof of being a Muslim for five years until such times as rules are framed.”
Syed Naseer Hussain, another Congress general secretary and member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that examined the Act, thanked the Supreme Court for striking a balance between reform and representation. “From the very beginning, I on behalf of the Congress party had cautioned the government repeatedly against including the three clauses that have been stayed today,” he said. Hussain argued that the provisions in question undermined the autonomy of the Waqf Board and left waqf properties vulnerable to constant challenge by “mischievous elements.”
But the Supreme Court did not give the petitioners everything they wanted. Notably, it upheld the deletion of the “waqf by user” concept—a provision that had allowed land used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes over a long period to be deemed waqf, even if not formally registered as such. The Court reasoned that if the legislature found examples of misuse and encroachment of government lands through this concept, it was justified in abolishing it prospectively. “If Mutawallis for a period of 102 years could not get the waqf registered, as required under the earlier provisions, they cannot claim that they be allowed to continue with the waqf even if they are not registered,” the bench stated.
The Court also addressed concerns about representation on waqf bodies. It ruled that the Central Waqf Council should not contain more than four non-Muslim members out of 22, and state boards no more than three out of 11. Furthermore, any ex-officio officer under Section 23 must belong to the Muslim community, ensuring that the boards remain representative of those they are meant to serve.
While the requirement that waqf properties be registered was upheld, the Court acknowledged that concerns about timelines for registration would be examined more closely as the case proceeds. The interim order also barred the creation of third-party rights in waqf properties while disputes are pending, aiming to prevent irreversible changes before a final judicial determination.
Opposition leaders, including Congress’ Pawan Khera, seized on the Supreme Court’s intervention as evidence that the government had pushed the law through without adequate consultation or debate. “Any government, elected government, elected by the votes of the people, when makes a law without any discussion, without consultation, then this happens,” Khera remarked, pointing to a broader pattern of judicial relief in recent years.
As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court has been careful to stress that its observations are provisional and that full arguments will be heard before a final ruling on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. For now, the Court’s interim order stands as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing the interests of all parties and safeguarding the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
