The Supreme Court's interim order regarding the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, has sparked mixed reactions in Kashmir, with political and religious parties calling for a second look at the legislation to address what they see as core issues that strike at the heart of religious freedom.

The Muttahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), the largest conglomerate of religious organizations across Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, headed by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, stated that while the Supreme Court stayed certain provisions in the interim order, wider constitutional and religious concerns remain unaddressed, leaving the community anxious and dissatisfied. According to the MMU, Waqf is not merely about property but about religious trust and service to Allah. They believe any attempt to dilute Muslim control over these sacred endowments or erode their historic protection is unacceptable to the community and goes against the principles enshrined in the Constitution, which grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own religious affairs.

The MMU acknowledged the partial interim relief provided by the court as a positive sign but asserted it does not go far enough. They raised concerns about the abolition of the long-recognized principle of 'Waqf by user,' which threatens centuries-old mosques, shrines, graveyards, and community institutions that have functioned as Waqf based on continuous use, even without formal deeds. The MMU argues that the mandatory requirement of a Waqf deed disregards historical realities where documents were lost or never existed, risking the sacred status of these properties. They also allege that transferring survey powers from independent commissioners to district collectors compromises neutrality and gives the state excessive control over religious trusts.

Several regional political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir have also expressed their dismay over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, terming it as "blatant interference" in the Muslim community and part of a "systematic attack on minority rights". Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President Mehbooba Mufti strongly opposed the bill, stating that India, once known for its unity and cultural harmony, is now witnessing a systematic attack on minority rights. She believes the BJP wants to take control of Muslim properties and religious places, viewing the bill as a continuation of that process.

However, J&K Waqf chairperson Darakshan Andrabi, a BJP leader, hailed the Centre's proposed legislation as a step that will help poor Muslims. Andrabi stated that the bill contains no provisions against Muslims and that proper management and accountability of the Waqf Board will lead to the upliftment of the community.

Political parties like the Congress welcomed the Supreme Court order, calling it a win for constitutional values of justice, equality, and fraternity. They asserted that it goes a long way towards undoing the "mischievous intentions" underlying the original statute. The Congress party stands firm in defending the rights of every citizen, without fear or favor, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's decision to put on hold certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the clause that only those practicing Islam for the last five years can dedicate a property as Waqf, reflects the court's recognition that some sections of the amended Act need protection. The court also stayed the provisions empowering district collectors to decide whether a property claimed as Waqf actually belongs to the government.

Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju welcomed the Supreme Court judgment, stating that it is a step forward in ensuring that Waqf assets are protected, developed, and utilized for the welfare of the community and the nation in line with the objectives of the 2025 reforms.

The debate surrounding the Waqf Amendment Act highlights the complex interplay between religious freedom, minority rights, and government regulation of religious institutions in India. While some view the Act as a necessary step towards modernizing and streamlining the management of Waqf properties, others see it as an infringement on the religious autonomy of the Muslim community. The call for a second look at the SC order reflects a desire among Kashmiri parties to ensure that the legislation strikes a fair balance between these competing interests and upholds the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.