Supreme Court’s Interim Stay on Waqf (Amendment) Act

On September 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India stepped in to pause the operation of key provisions of the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Acting on petitions filed by multiple community organizations and legal scholars, the Court granted interim relief by staying provisions that imposed new conditions such as the five-year religious practice requirement for waqf recognition, and the controversial power given to district collectors to adjudicate waqf disputes.

At the same time, the Court declined to halt the routine administrative clauses dealing with the registration of waqf properties, stating that those were essential to the day-to-day functioning of the system. By striking this balance, the Court has sought to prevent potential abuse of newly granted executive powers while maintaining continuity in the administration of waqf lands.

In its brief order, the Bench reportedly observed that some of the new provisions “raise serious concerns of arbitrary executive action” and that their implementation should be deferred until the central rules are framed and the constitutionality of the Act is fully examined.

Why the Five-Year Religious Practice Requirement Was Contested

One of the most contentious provisions of the 2025 amendment was the requirement that a religious practice or usage must have been in place for at least five years before it could qualify as a waqf. Critics argued that this stipulation effectively undermines the traditional understanding of waqf, which rests on the permanent dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes without temporal limitation.

From a constitutional perspective, this provision raised questions under Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee freedom of religion and protection of religious denominations in managing their own affairs. By introducing a state-imposed temporal threshold, the amendment appeared to give the government authority to decide which practices were “genuine” enough to merit legal recognition.

The Court’s decision to stay this provision therefore prevents the erosion of long-standing practices that may not meet the arbitrary five-year cutoff but are nevertheless essential to a community’s identity.

The Collector’s Role and Concerns of Executive Overreach

Perhaps the most heavily criticized clause was the empowerment of government collectors to decide waqf disputes. Traditionally, disputes concerning waqf property are adjudicated by specialized Waqf Tribunals under the Waqf Act, with the possibility of appeal to higher courts. By shifting initial dispute resolution powers to district-level executive officers, the amendment blurred the line between administrative and judicial functions.

Legal experts warned that this change could lead to executive overreach, particularly in states where waqf lands constitute vast tracts of urban and rural property with significant commercial value. Allegations of coercion, partisan control, and misuse of authority were raised even during parliamentary debates on the bill.

By staying this clause, the Supreme Court has effectively reinforced the constitutional principle of separation of powers, ensuring that quasi-judicial functions are not handed over to administrative officers without adequate safeguards.

What Provisions Remain in Force

Importantly, the Court did not suspend all aspects of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Routine registration requirements—such as those relating to updating the records of existing waqf properties or furnishing information on trusteeship—remain intact.

This calibrated approach preserves the administrative machinery necessary for day-to-day governance of waqf estates, while freezing only those provisions with the potential for systemic disruption or violation of constitutional rights.

By doing so, the Court has preserved the status quo without paralyzing the functioning of waqf boards across the country.

Broader Implications for Religious Property Jurisprudence

The Court’s intervention is part of a broader trend in Indian jurisprudence where courts have acted to protect religious property regimes from abrupt legislative intervention. Comparable controversies arose in the past concerning temple endowments, church lands, and other denominational properties, where courts have consistently emphasized that the state’s regulatory role must not extinguish core religious freedoms.

In the case of waqf, which represents one of the largest repositories of charitable landholdings in India, the stakes are particularly high. Any disruption in the governance framework has implications not only for religious autonomy but also for urban development, tenant rights, and state revenue.

By halting provisions that might destabilize this balance, the Supreme Court has signaled that religious property law remains a constitutionally sensitive domain requiring careful judicial scrutiny.

Parliamentary Intent vs. Judicial Scrutiny

The government, in defending the amendment, argued that the reforms were designed to bring greater transparency and accountability to waqf administration. The Ministry of Minority Affairs had highlighted widespread concerns of mismanagement, encroachment, and lack of uniform standards across state waqf boards.

However, petitioners contended that the chosen mechanisms—particularly vesting sweeping powers in collectors—were disproportionate and undermined the autonomy of religious communities.

The Supreme Court’s interim stay underscores the principle that even legitimate policy goals must be pursued within constitutional limits. It reflects the judiciary’s role as a check against executive or legislative overreach, especially in matters touching upon religious freedoms.

Looking Ahead: Final Hearing and Possible Outcomes

The Court has made it clear that its order is interim in nature and that a detailed hearing will follow once the central government notifies rules under the amended Act. The outcome of the final adjudication could take one of several paths:

• Partial Upholding: Some provisions may be struck down while others, if read narrowly, could survive with safeguards.

• Complete Invalidation: The entire set of contested clauses could be struck down as unconstitutional if found irreparably flawed.

• Deference to Parliament: The Court could uphold the provisions subject to strict interpretative limits that prevent abuse.

Whichever way the final decision goes, it will significantly shape the contours of waqf law and its interaction with constitutional principles of religious freedom, separation of powers, and property rights.

The Interim Order as a Safeguard Against Irreversible Harm

The jurisprudential rationale behind granting interim relief in such cases lies in preventing irreparable harm. Once implemented, provisions such as the five-year requirement or collector adjudication could result in large-scale de-recognition of waqf properties or administrative takeovers.

Rolling back such actions later would be legally complex and socially destabilizing. By staying these provisions at the outset, the Supreme Court has avoided a situation where communities would be forced to fight lengthy battles to reclaim rights already taken away.

This reflects a cautious judicial philosophy: intervene early where the risk of constitutional injury is high, even while leaving the door open for full adjudication.

Conclusion: A Delicate Balance Between Reform and Rights

The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 illustrates the delicate balance Indian courts must strike between allowing legislative reforms and protecting constitutional freedoms.

On the one hand, there is recognition of the government’s responsibility to bring transparency to waqf administration. On the other, there is an equally compelling need to safeguard religious autonomy, prevent executive overreach, and uphold constitutional guarantees.

By preserving routine administrative processes while halting potentially harmful clauses, the Court has preserved stability in a sensitive domain. The final judgment, when delivered, is likely to be a landmark ruling in India’s evolving jurisprudence on religious property and minority rights.