The Supreme Court's recent endorsement of clauses within the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is rooted in a century-long history of mismanagement and misappropriation of Waqf properties. This endorsement highlights the necessity for regulatory measures to protect these charitable endowments, which have been historically vulnerable to exploitation. The court's decision acknowledges the persistent issues that have plagued Waqf administration, prompting legislative intervention to address these systemic problems.
The bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, meticulously examined over a century of regulations concerning Waqfs, beginning with the Waqf Act of 1923. This initial act arose from growing concerns that endowments made by Muslims for religious and charitable purposes were being squandered or misappropriated by those entrusted with their management. The court noted that the 1923 Act was enacted because Waqf endowments were being misused to evade creditors and laws under the guise of religious dedication.
Recognizing the need for stringent oversight, the 1923 Act introduced a system of compulsory registration, requiring detailed information about the nature, extent, and other aspects of Waqfs. This measure aimed to provide transparency and accountability in Waqf administration, a principle that the Supreme Court emphasized remains relevant in the context of the 2025 Act. The 1923 Act also mandated the submission of particulars by each Waqf and authorized officials to verify credentials and accounts, with penalties for non-compliance.
Further regulations followed, including the Bengal Waqf Act of 1934 and the Waqf Act of 1954. The 1954 Act required state governments to conduct inquiries into the existence and administration of Waqfs through designated officials. The compulsory registration of Waqfs, a key feature of the 1923 Act, was also maintained under the 1954 Act.
Despite these successive legislative efforts, mismanagement and encroachment on Waqf properties persisted, necessitating the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The government defended the 2025 Act as a crucial measure to counter the rampant encroachment on both public and private properties. The Supreme Court acknowledged the presumption of constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature, but also recognized the need to address specific concerns raised against the amended law.
The Supreme Court refused to stay the entirety of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but did freeze certain provisions pending further review. One key provision stayed by the court mandates that a disputed property cannot be treated as Waqf unless the executive permits it after an inquiry. Another stayed provision required individuals to have practiced Islam for at least five years to dedicate property as Waqf. The court also emphasized the importance of having a Muslim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Waqf Boards, while allowing for the possibility of a non-Muslim CEO under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court's interim order on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has elicited varied reactions. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that the Supreme Court had upheld the decision made in Parliament. Congress representatives said the order was a check on the government's attempt to grab land.
