SC Puts Key Waqf Law Provisions on Hold, Offers Relief Amid Public Concern

In a much-anticipated decision on Monday, the Supreme Court of India declined to stay the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but pressed pause on several controversial provisions that have sparked national debate and fear within the community.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih ruled that the requirement for a person to be a practicing Muslim for five years to create a Waqf will be stayed—at least until a clear and fair mechanism is put in place to determine who qualifies as a “practitioner of Islam.”

“Without such a mechanism, the provision will lead to an arbitrary exercise of power,” the court observed firmly, acknowledging the genuine risk of misuse and uncertainty in implementation.

In another major development, the court also suspended the provision stating that a property will not be considered Waqf until a designated government officer submits a report on encroachment. This move was welcomed by many, especially those who feared that the Act might be used to take over land unjustly.

The court also imposed limits on board composition, stating that no more than three non-Muslim members can be appointed, with an absolute cap of four.

Among the provisions stayed is the controversial Section 3C(3), which empowered government officers to label properties as government-owned and direct corrections in revenue records, potentially altering ownership without court intervention. Similarly, Section 3C(4)—which gave the State Government sweeping powers to make changes in the Waqf board’s records—was also put on hold.

The apex court further clarified that until disputes over Waqf properties are fully resolved:

• The Waqf cannot be dispossessed of the land,

• The revenue records and Waqf board documentation will remain unaffected,

• And no third-party rights may be created over such properties.

These judicial safeguards are to remain in effect until final determinations are made under Section 83, and further appeals, if any, are addressed by the High Court.

Reacting to the verdict, Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi called it a victory for justice and public trust.

“This is a relief for those who selflessly donated land for the community’s good. The government cannot arbitrarily decide who is or isn’t Muslim enough to donate. This is deeply personal—it’s about faith,” he stated, vowing to continue the battle for justice.

Why It Matters:

This judgment is more than a legal decision—it’s a reaffirmation of India’s commitment to constitutional fairness and religious freedom. It places checks on excessive authority and recognizes the sacred nature of Waqf donations, ensuring that faith and charity are protected from bureaucracy and misuse.

As citizens, it’s time to remain informed, engaged, and vocal. Laws must be crafted not just with power, but with compassion and understanding.