Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Declaring ASI-Protected Monuments as Waqf Properties: Understanding the Landmark Decision

Sep 16, 2025

—

India’s Supreme Court has delivered an important order affecting the intersection of heritage conservation and religious endowments. By refusing to stay Section 3D of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Court has reaffirmed that any property notified as a protected monument or protected area under Indian heritage laws cannot be declared or treated as a waqf.

This ruling comes at a time of rising debate over the control, maintenance, and use of historic religious structures. It has wide implications for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), religious communities, and the legal framework governing India’s cultural heritage.

Background of the Case

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 introduced several changes to India’s waqf laws. Among them was Section 3D, which declares that any waqf notification is void if the property in question was already protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) at the time of the declaration.

Petitioners challenged this provision, arguing that it would infringe upon their right to manage and perform religious practices at historically significant waqf properties. They asked the Supreme Court to stay the provision. The Court, however, refused to grant a stay, meaning Section 3D remains fully in force.

What Section 3D Says

Provision	Key Content
Section 3D, Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025	Any declaration or notification of a waqf property shall be void if, at the time of such declaration or notification, the property was a protected monument or protected area under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 or the AMASR Act, 1958.

This makes it clear that ASI-protected monuments cannot simultaneously be treated as waqf properties.

The Petitioners’ Arguments

Section 3D would deprive Muslim communities of their customary religious practices at sites that had long been considered waqf property.
By invalidating waqf status for such monuments, the law effectively takes away community management rights, potentially undermining historical religious endowments.
They also argued that the provision violates fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly the right to freedom of religion.

Government’s Stand

The Union Government defended the provision strongly:

It highlighted incidents where mutawallis (waqf custodians) had obstructed ASI officials from performing necessary conservation work at protected monuments.
It argued that heritage protection laws already allow customary religious practices within protected monuments under Section 5(6) of the AMASR Act. Thus, religious freedoms would not be lost even if waqf status were voided.
The amendment was presented as a necessary measure to ensure unhindered preservation and maintenance of India’s cultural heritage while respecting religious sentiments.

Why the Supreme Court Refused to Stay Section 3D

The Court, in its interim order, noted:

The AMASR Act already allows customary religious practices in protected monuments. Therefore, there is no immediate or irreparable loss of religious freedom.
Heritage protection serves a compelling state interest. Allowing waqf declarations to override ASI’s conservation mandate could harm India’s historical monuments.
The petitioners failed to establish a strong prima facie case for staying the provision.

In short, the Court found that heritage protection and religious practices can co-exist under the current legal framework, without needing waqf status.

Other Provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act Under Challenge

While Section 3D remains operative, the Supreme Court has stayed some other controversial provisions of the Act:

Provision	Status
Five-year practising Muslim condition for creating a waqf	Stayed until rules for assessment are framed
Collector’s power to decide disputes over waqf property	Stayed; courts retain jurisdiction
Caps on non-Muslim membership in Waqf Boards	Under review

This shows the Court is taking a balanced approach—allowing provisions necessary for public interest to remain, while restraining others that may infringe on rights or administrative fairness.

Implications of the Decision

For Heritage Protection
The ruling strengthens the ASI’s ability to protect and maintain monuments of national importance. It removes legal ambiguity over whether waqf status can restrict ASI’s work.

For Religious Communities
Although waqf status will not apply to protected monuments, customary religious practices can continue under the AMASR Act. This distinction means that communities can still pray or perform rituals at such sites, but administrative control rests with the heritage authorities.

For Legal Precedent
The decision signals that the Supreme Court will likely uphold heritage protection laws where they are balanced with religious freedom provisions. It creates a model for managing similar conflicts in the future.

Challenges and Concerns

Defining “customary religious practice”: The AMASR Act allows it, but how broad is this definition? Will it cover all rituals, or only historically documented ones?
Loss of administrative control: Communities used to managing waqf properties may feel disenfranchised.
Implementation on the ground: Balancing conservation with religious access is often contentious, especially at high-profile monuments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s refusal to stay Section 3D of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 marks a landmark moment in balancing heritage conservation with religious rights. By upholding the bar on declaring ASI-protected monuments as waqf properties, the Court has prioritised the protection of India’s cultural treasures while preserving the right to practise customary religious activities within them.

This decision provides clarity to heritage managers, legal professionals, and religious communities alike. It sets the stage for a more structured approach to resolving disputes over historic religious sites and underscores the importance of protecting national heritage without completely displacing long-standing religious traditions.

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly reported information about recent Supreme Court proceedings and the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified professionals for legal guidance on specific situations.