Through an order dated April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to maintain status quo on the implementation of contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 till the next date of hearing. The matter for possible interim stay on certain provisions will now be heard in the week of May 5.
Recording the Centre’s assurance, the Supreme Court noted the following:
- No appointments of non-Muslims to the Waqf Boards or the Central Waqf Council will be made under the amended law until further orders.
- No steps will be taken to de-notify or disturb properties recognised as waqf—whether by user, by court declarations, or prior to the amendment.
- The matter is to be listed for further hearing on May 5, 2025. The union government has a week to file its reply, with rejoinders due within five days thereafter.
- The matter will now be heard under the title: “In Re: Waqf Amendment Act”, marking it as one of constitutional importance.
This order came in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on grounds that it violates the rights of the Muslim community and undermines the legal framework governing religious endowments.
Court expresses constitutional doubts over the Act
The three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, heard detailed arguments over two days, on April 16 and April 17, before recording the Union’s undertakings. The Court’s oral observations reflected deep concern over the potential impact of the amended provisions.
Among the first issues raised was the deletion of “waqf by user”, a legal principle long used to recognise religious endowments based on public use over time. CJI Khanna, during the hearing on April 16, observed that many prominent dargahs, graveyards, and mosques gained waqf status through community usage rather than written instruments. “You are erasing centuries of history,” he cautioned, noting the risk that thousands of such properties could be wiped off waqf registers.
Equally troubling to the Court was the amendment allowing non-Muslims to be appointed to the Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. CJI Khanna pointedly asked the Solicitor General: “Would you allow a non-Hindu on a Temple Trust?”—emphasising that Article 26 of the Constitution grants religious denominations the right to manage their own institutions.
The Court also took issue with provisions enabling district Collectors to initiate de-notification of waqf properties, calling it “very dangerous.” CJI Khanna questioned whether executive officials could be empowered to override judicial orders or undermine waqf declarations made by statutory bodies or courts.
Union backtracks under pressure, assures status quo
Faced with sharp judicial scrutiny, on April 17, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta gave repeated assurances that the government would not take any action under the amended Act that could adversely affect the waqf community until the Court decides on interim reliefs. He undertook that:
- No non-Muslim members would be appointed to any Waqf Board or the Central Waqf Council.
- The government would not de-notify waqf lands, including those identified through user or court proceedings.
- Any decision regarding future implementation would be deferred pending further orders of the Court.
Accepting these undertakings, the Court chose not to formally stay the legislation—respecting the presumption of constitutionality—but recorded the Union’s commitments in its judicial order. The matter will be next heard on May 5, 2025, and the Court directed the union government to file its counter-affidavit within a week. State governments who have also intervened will also place their stand on affidavit within the same days. Following that, all petitioners have been asked to file the rejoinder to the government within a subsequent five days.
Petitions raise fundamental challenges to the amendment
The petitions—filed by Members of Parliament (including from the Congress, AIMIM, DMK, RJD, CPI, IUML, and Samajwadi Party), religious bodies (All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind), and civil society groups (such as the Association for Protection of Civil Rights)—raise serious constitutional concerns.
They argue that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025:
- Violates Article 26, by interfering in the management of religious institutions by permitting non-Muslims on waqf boards.
- Undermines Article 25 and 29, by curbing the rights of Muslims to preserve and manage their religious and cultural endowments.
- Breaches Article 14, by arbitrarily empowering administrative authorities to strip properties of their waqf status.
Among the most contentious provisions are:
- Deletion of “waqf by user”, potentially erasing the status of properties long treated as waqf by local communities.
- Administrative de-notification powers, allowing Collectors to initiate proceedings even where courts have declared properties as waqf.
- A new threshold for creation of waqf, limiting it to Muslims with five years’ standing.
- Reduced representation of women on Waqf Boards.
- Exclusion of waqf properties within scheduled areas and under ASI protection.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, CU Singh, and others, who appeared for the petitioners, had pressed for interim relief during the hearings and urged the Court to recognise the immediate threat posed by the law. They described the amendments as a “systematic attempt to dismantle waqf protections” and called it a State-led effort to dispossess the Muslim community of its religious and charitable properties.
The Court, while refraining from granting a stay, had sent a clear signal through its oral remarks and structured case management that it sees the matter as a constitutional test of legislative overreach into religious freedoms.
What lies Ahead
The next hearing in the week of May 5, 2025 will be crucial, as the Court will consider whether the undertakings given by the union are sufficient, or if formal interim orders are warranted. It is also expected to delve deeper into the core constitutional questions: Can the State interfere with the internal management of religious endowments? Does deleting “waqf by user” constitute historical erasure? Can administrative officers override judicial declarations?
In a political and legal climate increasingly hostile to minority rights, the Court’s intervention has come as a relief for many. However, this is only the beginning of a prolonged battle to safeguard minority rights in India.
Related:
“Urdu Is Not Alien”: Supreme Court reclaims the language’s place in the Indian Constitutional fabric
SC to UoI on Waqf Amendment: ‘Are you willing to allow Muslims on Hindu endowment boards?’
When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases