Supreme Court refuses to stay Waqf Amendment Act but suspends some key provisions

THe sublime margaret court on mon declined to stay on the Waqf (Amendment) move, 2025 in its entirety, though it put on hold some of its contentious provisions. Among those suspended are the provisions empowering district collectors to decide whether a property claimed as waqf actually belongs to the government, and the stipulation that only a lawful property owner who has been practising Islam for at least five years can create waqf through a formal deed.Reading out the operative part of the order, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai clarified that the requirement of being a practising Muslim for five years will take effect only after state governments frame rules on how to determine a person's adherence to Islam.Also Read | What is Waqf: Explained in 4 simple pointsThe bench, which also comprised Justice AG Masih, held that the mandatory registration of waqf properties on a centralised portal cannot be interfered with. However, it suspended the provision authorising collectors to make a final determination on the nature of a property and to alter revenue records. Any such determination, the court ruled, must remain subject to adjudication by waqf tribunals and the concerned high courts. Until those proceedings are concluded, no third-party rights can be created in the disputed properties.The court further directed that the Central Waqf Council -- an advisory body under the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs chaired ex officio by the Union minister, should not have more than four non-Muslim members. Similarly, state waqf boards should not include more than three non-Muslim members. The bench also suggested that chief executive officers of waqf boards should preferably be Muslims, even though the amended law does not expressly mandate this.Delivering the judgment, CJI Gavai underscored that legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. At the same time, he said, certain safeguards were necessary, warranting the suspension of some provisions of the new law.The development comes against the backdrop of an August 22 hearing, when the CJI-led bench declined to stay a Union government notification mandating that all waqf properties across the country be registered on a centralised digital portal within six months. The notification, issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs on June 6, requires registration of all waqf properties on the UMEED (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development) portal.At that time, the CJI made it clear that the court could not pass an interim stay since the judgment had already been reserved. "How can we pass an interim order when the judgment has been reserved in the issue? Sorry! You comply with whatever is required. We will consider everything in our order," the CJI told counsel pressing for relief.Also Read | Waqf Board explainer: How much land it owns, its powers, what the govt wants to change and other questions answeredAccording to the Centre, the UMEED platform is intended to create a centralised and transparent repository of waqf property details, including photographs and geotagged locations. Properties not registered within the stipulated time frame risk being categorised as disputed and possibly referred to a tribunal.The petitions challenging the Act were argued over three days in May, after which the bench reserved orders on May 22. At that stage, the court had noted that keeping an inventory of waqf properties has been part of the legal framework for more than a century."We have seen the law since the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923. Technically, the 1923 law did not have a provision for registration but information about the Waqf had to be provided. From the Waqf Act, 1954, registration was required. There was a report of 1976 which revealed why registration was necessary. From 1923 till 2025, for over 100 years, the scheme of various enactments had emphasised on registration," the bench had observed on the day.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, had argued that shifting the onus of registration onto custodians of Waqf properties punishes the community for the failure of the state, which since 1954 was responsible for surveying and identifying such properties. "It is the failure of the state to carry out their job from 1954 to 2025 and due to their failure, a community is being punished," he contended, stressing that the law undermines Muslims' constitutional right under Article 26 to administer their own property.The petitioners also took issue with other provisions of the 2025 law, including a requirement that only a practicing Muslim of at least five years may dedicate property as waqf -- an eligibility criterion not imposed on other religious endowments.Defending the law, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that permitting "any person" to dedicate waqf, as allowed by the 2013 amendment, was conceptually flawed. "How can waqf, which is an Islamic concept, be available for non-Islamic persons?" he asked, insisting that the 2025 amendments were designed to enhance transparency and curb misuse.Another flashpoint during hearings was the prohibition on creating waqf on land belonging to scheduled tribes. Mehta said the restriction was intended to protect vulnerable communities and their cultural identity, citing the joint parliamentary committee report that recommended the safeguard. The bench, however, expressed scepticism, remarking: "What is the nexus of not allowing waqf on tribal land? Islam is Islam. Cultural traditions may differ, but religion is the same. If a waqf is sought to be created by fraud or deception, that will otherwise also go."During the May 22 hearing, senior lawyers including Rajeev Dhavan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi underscored how the Act allegedly discriminates against Muslims and risks extinguishing properties historically recognised as waqf through usage or oral tradition -- provisions now curtailed. Dhavan argued that charity is among the five fundamental pillars of Islam, while Singhvi cautioned that provisions around registration and government disputes created a "vicious circle" that could block recognition of legitimate Waqf.States and other intervenors supporting the Centre, however, highlighted instances of alleged misuse, citing cases where large tracts, even entire villages, were claimed as Waqf property.The bunch of petitions have challenged the Act on multiple constitutional grounds, alleging violation of fundamental rights and erosion of age-old Waqf traditions. The Centre has defended the law as a necessary reform to ensure accountability, transparency and protection against encroachment.