The Supreme Court of India addressed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after hearing petitions challenging the law. Petitioners, including several opposition parties and Muslim organizations, argued that the Act violates constitutional guarantees of minority rights. The central government defended the Act as necessary for accountability and transparency in Waqf property management.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The petitioners raised several key objections to the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025:

• Violation of Constitutional Rights: The petitioners argued that the Act violates Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the rights of minorities to manage their institutions. They contended that the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf boards and increased central oversight constitute unconstitutional interference in religious affairs.
• "Creeping Acquisition" of Waqf Properties: Petitioners described the Act as a "creeping acquisition" of Muslim properties, potentially leading to their conversion into private or government property. They argued that the law contradicts the principle of "once a Waqf, always a Waqf".
• Denotification of Waqf Properties: A key concern was the power granted to the government to denotify properties already declared as Waqf by courts or through long-term usage.
• Composition of Waqf Boards: Petitioners argued that only Muslims (excluding ex-officio members) should be allowed to operate on state Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council.
• Inquiry by Government Officers: The petitioners challenged the provision allowing a government-designated officer, such as the District Collector, to decide disputes regarding whether a Waqf property is actually government land. They argued that this violates the separation of powers.
• Restriction on Creating Waqfs: The Act requires individuals creating a Waqf to demonstrate that they have practiced Islam for at least five years, which petitioners argued discriminates against recent converts and violates Articles 14, 15, 25, and 300A of the Constitution.
• Extinguishing Waqf Character of ASI-Listed Sites: Section 3D of the Act states that any property declared an ancient monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, shall cease to be Waqf. Petitioners argued this violates Articles 25 and 26 by stripping the Muslim community of its right to manage religious affairs.

The Supreme Court's Observations and Stays

The Supreme Court declined to stay the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, stating that there is a "presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a statute". However, the court stayed certain provisions of the law:

• Five-Year Islamic Practice Rule: The requirement for a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years to dedicate property as Waqf was put on hold. The court observed that without a mechanism to determine whether a person has been practicing Islam for five years or more, the provision could lead to an "arbitrary exercise of power". This provision is stayed until state governments frame rules for determining whether a person is a practitioner of Islam.
• Collector's Power to Determine Government Property: The provision empowering a Collector (District Magistrate) to determine whether a property declared as Waqf is government property was also stayed. The court noted that allowing the Collector to adjudicate citizens' rights would violate the principle of separation of powers. The Supreme Court said that a government officer cannot decide if a property is Waqf.
• Composition of Waqf Boards: The court directed that the number of non-Muslims in state Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council cannot exceed three.

The Supreme Court's interim orders address key concerns raised by the petitioners while allowing the bulk of the Act to remain in force. The court's decision reflects a careful balancing of the need for regulatory oversight of Waqf properties and the protection of minority rights and constitutional principles.