Supreme Court Stays Key Provisions of Waqf Act 2025: Setback for Petitioners

Sep 15, 2025

—

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, following petitions challenging certain provisions of the law. While the Court stayed some controversial clauses, it refused to suspend the Act in its entirety. Experts and petitioners have noted this as a partial relief but largely a setback, as most of the Act remains operational.

This article explains the Court’s decision, the provisions stayed, what continues to remain in force, and its implications for communities, administrators, and legal practitioners.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Order

Aspect	Details
Act Status	The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 continues to be in force. Only certain provisions were stayed.
Provisions Stayed	• Requirement of practicing Islam for five years to create a Waqf property. • Power of district collectors/officers to declare property government-owned immediately. • Unilateral correction of revenue records by officials. • Restrictions on third-party rights before final adjudication. • Caps on non-Muslim membership in Central and State Waqf Boards.
Provisions Remaining	• Removal of “Waqf by user” concept. • Applicability of the Limitation Act on Waqf property claims. • General procedural rules for managing Waqf properties not specifically stayed.
Petitioners’ Outcome	Partial relief on some clauses, but overall challenge faces a setback. The Act remains largely in force.
Court Reasoning	The Court emphasized the “presumption of constitutionality” of statutes. Provisions that could violate constitutional rights were stayed, while others without prima facie violation were allowed to continue.

What the Petitioners Challenged

Petitioners had argued that the amended Act:

Violated constitutional protections for religious freedom.
Allowed arbitrary powers to officers, risking misuse.
Restricted access and control of Waqf properties for rightful owners.
Discriminated against minorities in the composition of Waqf Boards.
Removed traditional rights like “Waqf by user,” which protected informal Waqf claims.

Why This is Considered a Setback

While some provisions were stayed, the Supreme Court’s decision largely favored keeping the law operational:

Act continues largely unchanged: The majority of the law remains active, impacting new claims and ongoing disputes.
Critical clauses not stayed: Removal of “Waqf by user” and limitation period clauses still apply, potentially affecting informal or older Waqf properties.
Future implementation pending rules: Clauses like the 5-year practice requirement may become operational once rules are framed, leaving uncertainty.
No retrospective relief: Existing waqf properties are protected, but new disputes will still follow the amended provisions.

Implications for Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Implication
Waqf Boards	Must continue implementing provisions that remain in force and prepare for new rules once stayed clauses are activated.
Community Members	Partial relief on controversial provisions, but some traditional rights and claims may be affected.
Government Officials	Must follow procedural guidelines for stayed provisions and monitor further legal developments.
Legal Practitioners	Need to advise clients carefully on which clauses are active and how to protect Waqf property rights.

Court’s Rationale

The Supreme Court clarified that:

Laws passed by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality, and courts will not stay the entire Act unless there is a clear violation.
Provisions that could potentially lead to misuse, discrimination, or infringement of constitutional rights were granted interim relief.
The judgment aims to balance protection of Waqf property rights with administrative efficiency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, represents a mixed outcome. Petitioners received partial relief, but the overall legal landscape remains in favor of implementing most provisions of the Act. While some controversial clauses were stayed, the Act largely continues, marking a setback for petitioners seeking a broader suspension.

The judgment underlines the need for careful rule framing, administrative oversight, and continued monitoring of how Waqf properties are managed under the amended law.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for guidance on Waqf property matters and Supreme Court judgments. The interpretation of the law may evolve as further hearings occur.