'No Case Made': Supreme Court Declines To Suspend Entire Waqf Act, Stays Select Provisions In Big Verdict

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered its interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which had been challenged through multiple petitions. The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih held that the presumption always rests in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and that staying an entire law can only be done in the rarest of circumstances. The court observed that while the Act as a whole did not merit suspension, some specific provisions required interim protection until a final hearing is concluded.

Chief Justice Gavai noted, “We have found that the entire Act is challenged, but the basic challenge was to Sections 3(r), 3C, and 14. We have gone to the legislative history from the 1923 Act and considered prima facie challenges to each section. A case for striking down the entire statute was not made out, but sections under challenge have been stayed.”

Collector’s Authority and Property Rights

A major provision under scrutiny was Section 3C, which allowed designated officers and district Collectors to adjudicate claims and determine rights over Waqf properties. The Supreme Court clarified that such a mechanism would blur the separation of powers and, therefore, ordered that the provision remain stayed.

The bench explained that until the Waqf Tribunal decides on the title of a property, no third-party rights shall be created against any party. Importantly, the court underlined that Waqf institutions would not be dispossessed of their property until a final adjudication on ownership is made. This ensures that property disputes remain within judicial and quasi-judicial forums, not administrative offices.

Religious Qualification for Creating Waqf

Another provision stayed was Section 3(r), which stated that only a person practising Islam for at least five years could create a Waqf. The bench reasoned that without a formal mechanism to establish such a condition, the rule could lead to practical difficulties. Until appropriate rules are framed to determine eligibility, the requirement of a five-year period will remain inoperative.

By putting this clause on hold, the court ensured that the declaration of Waqf properties continues without interruption, while leaving space for future regulations to provide clarity.

Composition of Waqf Boards and Councils

The Act had introduced changes to the composition of Waqf Boards and Councils by allowing up to four non-Muslim members. The Supreme Court, however, held that for now, Waqf Boards should not consist of more than three non-Muslim members, and Waqf Councils should not include more than four non-Muslims in total.

The bench also clarified that under Section 23, the ex-officio officer serving on the Waqf Board must be from the Muslim community. This maintains continuity in the administration of Waqf matters, while also recognising limited external representation as per the amended law.

Legislative History Considered

During deliberations, the bench referred to the history of Waqf legislation beginning with the 1923 Act. It acknowledged that while the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was framed by Parliament to streamline the management of Waqf properties, some provisions required judicial examination to ensure they aligned with constitutional principles.

The court emphasised that this interim relief was limited in scope, applying only to specific sections, and did not affect the rest of the law which remains in force. The petitions challenging the Act will now proceed to detailed hearings where the constitutional validity of the amendments will be examined in full.

Selective Stay, Broader Law Intact

The Supreme Court’s order represents a careful balance between upholding legislative authority and ensuring that disputed provisions do not create unintended consequences before final adjudication. While the Act as a whole remains operational, clauses relating to property adjudication, religious qualifications, and the composition of boards have been paused.

By reinforcing that the presumption of constitutionality applies to all statutes, the bench has ensured that Parliament’s legislative will continues to function, subject only to limited interim safeguards. The matter will now be taken up for a comprehensive hearing, where the constitutional issues raised will be addressed in detail.