Author: Ume Habiba Shah

Case Title: In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Citation: W.P.(C) No. 269/2025 and connected matters; 2025 INSC 1116

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI and A.G. Masih, J.

Date of Judgment: September 15, 2025

Relevant Statutes: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025; Waqf Act, 1995; Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution of India

1. BRIEF FACTS

The word ‘Waqf’ comes from Arabic, meaning dedication or confinement. In Islamic law, when a Muslim permanently dedicates property to God for religious or charitable purposes, it becomes Waqf — it can never be sold, inherited, or gifted. India has one of the world’s largest Waqf estates comprising approximately 8.7 lakh registered properties spread across 9.4 lakh acres.

The regulation of Waqf in India has evolved through several statutes, beginning with the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923 and culminating in the comprehensive Waqf Act, 1995, which established State Waqf Boards and a Central Waqf Council.

On August 8, 2024, the central government introduced the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha. A Joint Parliamentary Committee examined it over 96 sittings, receiving 9.7 million representations. Parliament passed the Bill on April 4, 2025 with 288 votes in favour in the Lok Sabha and 128 in the Rajya Sabha. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent on April 5, 2025.

Almost immediately, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi filed challenges in the Supreme Court. Over 65 petitions followed from the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the DMK, various MPs, and civic groups. The Supreme Court clubbed all petitions on April 17, 2025, as ‘In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025,’ and after extensive hearings delivered an interim verdict on September 15, 2025.

2. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution of India?

2. Whether abolition of ‘Waqf by user’ — recognising property as Waqf based on long-term religious use — is constitutionally valid?

3. Whether Section 3(r) requiring demonstrable practice of Islam for at least five years before creating a Waqf violates constitutional rights?

4. Whether inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards infringes the religious denomination’s right to manage its own affairs under Articles 26(b) and 26(d)?

5. Whether Section 3C permitting government officers to determine Waqf status violates separation of powers and property rights?

3. ARGUMENTS

Petitioners’ Arguments:

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that charity (Sadaqah) is one of the five pillars of Islam and Waqf is fundamentally a religious institution. Enhanced State control over Waqf bodies strikes at the community’s right to manage its religious affairs under Article 26. The abolition of ‘Waqf by user’ threatens thousands of ancient mosques and dargahs created through oral dedication without written deeds. The five-year practice requirement under Section 3(r) is unenforceable without a prescribed mechanism and arbitrary. Mandating non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards violates religious autonomy. Section 3C allowing government officers to unilaterally strip properties of Waqf status without judicial oversight undermines separation of powers.

Respondent’s Arguments:

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that charity (Sadaqah) is not an ‘essential religious practice’ in the constitutional sense. The amendments regulate secular administration of Waqf properties, not religious freedoms. ‘Waqf by user’ is a statutory right that Parliament can modify to prevent misuse and encroachment on government land. The reforms bring transparency to 8.7 lakh properties worth trillions of rupees. The law was preceded by unprecedented consultation including 96 JPC meetings and 10 million representations. Inclusion of non-Muslim members brings broader accountability, and regulation of secular activities of religious endowments is a permissible state function.

4. JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court declined to grant a blanket stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, reaffirming the strong presumption of constitutionality for Parliamentary enactments. However, the Court issued targeted directions on specific provisions.

Section 3(r) was stayed until the Union prescribes a mechanism to determine five years of Islamic practice. The proviso to Section 3C(2) and sub-sections (3) and (4) were stayed as they allowed government officers to make binding determinations about Waqf status without judicial oversight, raising separation-of-powers concerns. No Waqf property shall be dispossessed until full adjudication through the Waqf Tribunal and higher courts.

On Board Composition, the Court directed that the Central Waqf Council shall not have more than four non-Muslim members and State Waqf Boards shall not have more than three. The Court upheld the requirement that only a property owner can create a Waqf and the registration requirement.

5. RATIO DECIDENDI

There exists a strong presumption of constitutionality in favour of Parliamentary enactments, and courts must exercise extreme caution before staying legislation at an interim stage. Provisions that confer essentially judicial functions upon executive officers without proper safeguards violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Where statutory provisions lack operational clarity or prescribed mechanisms for enforcement, they cannot be immediately implemented even if facially constitutional.

6. OBITER DICTA

The Court emphasised that religious autonomy under Articles 25 and 26 must be carefully balanced against the State’s legitimate interest in regulating the secular aspects of religious endowments. Transparency and accountability in managing properties worth trillions of rupees is a valid public interest concern. The concept of ‘essential religious practice’ requires careful examination in the context of charitable endowments, and the constitutional protection of minority rights extends not merely to belief but also to the institutional framework through which religious communities manage their affairs.

7. FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court refused to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety. However, the Court stayed Section 3(r) until appropriate rules are framed, and stayed the proviso to Section 3C(2) and sub-sections 3C(3) and 3C(4) on grounds of separation of powers. The Court capped non-Muslim representation on the Central Waqf Council at four members and on State Waqf Boards at three members. All other provisions remain operative. The matter remains pending for final adjudication on merits.

8. PERSONAL COMMENTARY

The Supreme Court’s interim judgment reflects careful judicial restraint — acknowledging serious constitutional concerns while declining to paralyse an Act of Parliament without conclusive proof of unconstitutionality. The stay on Section 3C sub-provisions is constitutionally sound, as executive determination of Waqf status without judicial oversight confers judicial power on administrative functionaries, implicating the separation of powers recognised in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

This case reflects a deeper tension in Indian constitutional governance: how much control can the State exercise over religious communities’ internal management? The Constitution permits regulation of secular aspects of religious endowments, but the line between secular administration and religious autonomy is contested. The 2025 amendments expand State presence in both dimensions, drawing scrutiny.

The government’s concern is legitimate — properties worth trillions being managed without adequate transparency is a genuine public interest problem. Good governance of Waqf assets is not unconstitutional. The question awaiting final adjudication is whether the means employed are proportionate and fair to the community whose endowments are being regulated.