The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, introduced amid polarised discourse, has faced relentless scrutiny for its perceived incursion into Muslim religious endowments. On September 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark interim order by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, partially stayed the selection of provisions, navigating the delicate balance between legislative reforms, principles of natural justice, and constitutional safeguards for minorities, basically Article 30.
The apex court refused a blanket suspension of the act. It affirmed its intention to intervene primarily against the clauses risking arbitrariness and separation of powers violations, underscoring its role as a sentinel of India’s secular ethos. The ruling emerges from writ petitions filed after the Act’s passage on April 8, 2025, and the notification, echoing landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which held that while the Parliament may amend laws, it cannot alter the Constitution's “basic structure” (like equality and freedom) and should preserve legislative space while shielding fundamental freedoms.
However, before jumping into the exact ruling, let’s first understand what exactly the waqf is. What were the amendments that the central government sought to bring? And how did it become a hotbed for political debates?
Historical Context
The Waqf, rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, denotes the irrevocable dedication of property for religious, pious, or charitable purposes, ensuring perpetual communal benefit. Spanning 9.4 lakh acres across 8.7 lakh registered properties, it sustains mosques, madrasas, and welfare for 20 crore Muslims, India’s second-largest religious majority. It is the third-largest owner of land after the Defence and the Railway sectors.
Mughal rulers institutionalised vast estates, a legacy that endured post-1857 Revolt. British discomfort with its perpetuity spurred the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, affirming oral dedications, followed by the 1923 Act’s regulatory framework amid rising litigation. Post-Independence, the Waqf Act, 1954, centralised oversight via State Boards, establishing an administrative system for supervising Waqf properties in their respective states. The state government, under Section 13 of the Waqf Act, holds the power to establish a Waqf board for each state separately.
The State Waqf Board consists of the chairman, members nominated by the state government, Muslim legislators, Muslim MLAs, Muslim members of the state bar council, recognised Islamic scholars and theologians, and Mutawallis, who manage the waqf. Section 15 of the Waqf Act allows a tenure of 5 years for the members of the Waqf board. The functions and powers of the state waqf board lie under section 32 of the Waqf Act.
This section holds some of the most important functions of the waqf board, such as maintenance, directions, administration of waqf properties, appointment and removal of mutawallis, scrutinising and inspecting budgets and waqf accounts. It also handles legal proceedings concerning the waqf property.
The Central Waqf Council of India, a statutory body established by the government in 1964, under the Ministry of Minority Affairs, oversees the work under various state waqf boards, which were established under the provisions of section (9)(1) of the Waqf Act, 1954. All funds of the waqf are received by the central waqf council. It was originally established to provide guidance to the central government and supervise the state-level board.
The composition of the Centre Waqf Council includes the chairperson (the union minister in charge of waqf) ex officio and members appointed by the government of India (not exceeding 20 members). These members are appointed from the Muslim community all over India and can include – Muslim members of Parliament, state legislatures, and State Bar Councils; recognized scholars of Islamic theology, Mutawalis of the Waqf properties; and representatives from Muslim organisations, scholars, and professors. However, at least 2 of the members should be women. A secretary is also appointed by the council as its executive head.
The last amendment made in 2013 further expanded the powers of the board, restricting civil court jurisdiction over it and thus, fuelling perceptions of unchecked authority. The amendments were informed by recommendations from the Sachar Committee and Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) and aimed to address misuse of power, mismanagement, and underutilisation of waqf property.
Persistent Challenges in Waqf Administration
The Waqf boards have long faced allegations of opacity, mismanagement, and conflicts with general property laws. Encroachments plague 58,000 properties and 1.2 lakh private holdings, as per Ministry affidavits. Jurisdictional clashes—Waqf claims overriding revenue records—persist, as affirmed in Rajasthan Wakf Board v. State of Rajasthan (2012), upholding “waqf by user”.
Say, for instance, under the Waqf Act 1995, if the Waqf Board thinks that the property belongs to it, then the property has to be given to the Waqf Board without any ifs or buts? Merely thinking or a minimal claim of the board is enough to render the property owner propertyless. No proof has to be shown by the board. The burden of proof lies on the complainant under section 40 of the act. Further, the aggrieved party can not even move to a civil court; however, they can go to the WAQF tribunal, which makes no difference anyway.
Thus, it was the need of the hour to bring reforms to the Waqf Act to make its functioning more professional, transparent, and adjusted to the demands of the present time.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
With the same motive, the central government introduced the UMEED ACT, 2025, passed by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in April, and received presidential assent on April 5, 2025, which seeks to amend over 40 sections under its “ease of living” mantra. The amendments under the Act are:
- Mandatory verification of the property claimed
- Changes in sections 9 and 14 of the act
- Fresh verification of the disputed land
- Involvement of the District Magistrate to be replaced by a senior government official
- A designated officer will update the revenue record of the board to clarify whether the land really belongs to WAQF or the Government.
- Non-Muslim members are to be added to the boards.
- The time frame for registering waqf properties has been extended to 1 year
- Women's involvement in the WAQF Council
Arguments of the Parties
Hours after the notification, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) filed Public Interest Litigation, WP(C) No. 276/2025, consolidating 20+ petitions in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, claiming it was a “dangerous conspiracy” to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. This came after President Droupadi Murmu gave assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, which had earlier been passed by the Parliament. Several petitions, including one by Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, have been filed in the apex court challenging the validity of the Act. In the JUH petition, it was stated that this law was a “direct attack on the country's Constitution, which not only provides equal rights to its citizens but also grants them complete religious freedom.” According to the petition, due to these unconstitutional amendments, the foundations of the Waqf Act, 1955, have been undermined, invoking Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A.
Petitioners' Argument
Led by Kapil Sibal, Dr Rajeev Dhavan, and Huzefa Ahmadi. They branded the act “wholly unconstitutional.”
- • Discriminatory and violative of Article 15: Section 3(r) adds a “piety test”—the government checks if a Waqf is truly "religious" (needs 5 years of use). They argue, “Why only for Muslims?" Imagine if they did this to Hindu temples!
- • Arbitrary and Unfair Judgement (Breaks Article 14 and Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978): Section 3C lets District Collectors (government officials) decide Waqf claims before a full hearing, even removing properties without proof.
- • Singles Out Minorities (Breaks Articles 15, 25, and 26): Sections 3D and 3E stop Waqfs on ancient monuments or government land. Sections 9 and 14 change Waqf Boards to add non-Muslims. Petitioners: “This invades our religious freedom and right to manage our own mosques. It's like non-Hindus running Hindu trusts!”
- • Hurts Old Properties and Rights (Breaks Articles 20 and 300A): Section 3E applies backwards (retrospectively) to old tribal Waqfs. Section 36(10) blocks unregistered Waqfs (70% of them) from using courts.
The Defendants' Argument
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Government argued: “We're just fixing real problems, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!”
- • Necessary Reform: Cites the 1995 Waqf Act's weaknesses, like too much unchecked power for boards. Points to 58,000 encroachments and 120,000 private clashes.
- • Not Discriminatory—Fair and Uniform (Article 14 Okay): Sections like 3C (Collector checks) are like public trust rules for everyone. Deleting "Waqf by user" is rational—no more overriding normal property records.
- • Protections: Sections 3D/3E align with protecting old monuments (like the Taj Mahal). Section 107 makes rules uniform. Helping by adding diverse board members (agreeing to limit non-Muslims to 3-4).
- • Parliament's Right: Quotes the Rajasthan case (1977): "Laws from Parliament are holy unless they're obviously wrong. This is just good governance."
Court’s Reasoning and Directions
The Apex court acted like a referee here; it assumed the law was in utmost good faith but stepped in where it smelled trouble. Anchored in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Court upheld a statutory presumption: “A parliamentary statute... enjoys constitutional sanctity unless manifestly unconstitutional.”
And thus, addressed the critical provisions— Stayed Section 3(r): Paused the "5-year piety check" until states make clear rules. Stayed Parts of Section 3C: Stopped Collectors from derecognising Waqfs before a full report or tribunal hearing. The government can't play judge and jury. Upheld Some Parts: Upheld the deletion of “Waqf by user” (fair under equality), Sections 3D/3E (parts of heritage), and Section 107 (uniform rules). But capped non-Muslims on boards (3-4 max).
Bigger Picture Fixes: Ordered no property sales/evictions till tribunals decide. Pushed for quick full hearing in Q1 2026, AI surveys for encroachments, and Ulema input on rules. In gist, the court reiterated that "reform yes, but not at the cost of basics like equality and freedom." It's a "half-win"—it keeps the bad, lets the good go, but leaves big questions for later.
Critical Questions Addressed
What Does This Mean? Short-term Win: Helps 80% of Waqfs register properly; no immediate land grabs. Long-term Risk: Could split Waqfs or weaken them if not fixed. Needs more talks. Big Lesson: India's Constitution protects minorities while allowing change. It's like a mosaic—colourful pieces fit together without breaking.
Prospective Models for Waqf Reform
The court so far and the act so far have failed to address the issues of the Waqf Act; however, to achieve a more meaningful impact, India could draw from global best practices such as:
- Singapore's Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS): Redeveloped an old mosque into a mixed complex of mosque plus commercial complex, with 103 service apartments.
- Malaysia’s State Religious Authorities: Developed vacant waqf land into terrace houses, shops, and offices. Making it a profit-sharing model.
- Waqf An-Noor Corporation, Malaysia: Provides health care and dialysis services for Muslims and non-Muslims as well.
- Turkey's General Directorate of Foundations: Loans provided to the needy by the board, making the charity work.
- Pakistan's Auqaf Departments: Auqaf Departments regulate waqf, but civil courts retain jurisdiction.
- Egypt's Ministry of Awqaf: Waqf is under strict state control, with judicial supervision.
Such a comparative study shows judicial oversight is a global norm, even in Muslim-majority countries. By integrating global models, India can foster transparent, inclusive Waqf management that benefits all communities.
Conclusion
The evolution of the Waqf Act, from the British India period of the Musallam Wakf Validating Act, 1913 to the post-independence period, marked by the recent 2025 amendment, shows a permanent legislative tension between ensuring transparent administration throughout and protecting the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
While each amendment aimed to address inefficiencies and correct past errors, the core disputes remain unresolved. Thus, it has led to the Supreme Court's interim order to reflect this delicate balancing act. The Supreme Court’s decision, along with acknowledging the government’s arguments regarding the prevention of misuse and encroachment, also recognises legitimate community concerns over religious self-governance.
In the final analysis, a perfect solution for the Waqf Act does not yet exist, as it depends on the legislative provisions and reforms, along with judicial scrutiny. The authority to amend the Act lies with the Parliament, while the Central Waqf Board and State Waqf Boards remain vital stakeholders in its administration. The government must work in close consultation with these bodies to arrive at an amicable and balanced solution that respects both community welfare and national interests.
Avika Bhardwaj and Medhavi Singh