Author: M. Nissi Deborah, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University
To The Point
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court in cases contest
ing the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 demonstrates a meticulous constitutional balancing act. The Court denied a stay for the Act as a whole, but it granted temporary stays for some clauses that raised questions about arbitrariness and potential violations of property rights and religious liberties under Articles 14, 25, and 300A. For instance, in order to preserve the separation of powers and safeguard due process, it put a five-year hold on the clause requiring proof of Islamic practice due to unclear verification procedures and clauses permitting government officials to resolve waqf property issues prior to tribunal adjudication. Additionally, while awaiting final tribunal rulings, the Court maintained the status quo on waqf properties by prohibiting record amendment or dispossession. During judicial review, this methodical approach protects fundamental rights and religious institutions’ autonomy while upholding legislative power. This highlights the Court’s sophisticated strategy for balancing the State’s regulatory role in waqf administration with religious autonomy.
Abstract
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was passed to increase waqf administration’s inclusion, efficiency, and transparency, generated national discussion. The government described it as a reform intended to modernise waqf property management and bring it into line with secular governance norms, while others called it a legislative overreach into issues of Muslim religious endowments.
This article discusses how the Supreme Court struck a balance between the conflicting interests of state control and religious autonomy, focusses on constitutional assessment of legislative competence and consequences for basic rights, and analyses the Supreme Court’s interim injunction prohibiting certain articles from operating. The ruling serves as an example of the judiciary’s mediation function in resolving conflicts between the state and religion within the confines of the constitution.
Use of Legal Jargon
The use of legal jargon in the context of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 reflects the specialized terminology deployed to specify legislative and judicial processes regarding waqf administration. Terms like “stay,” “proviso,” “sub-section,” and “tribunal” are used to describe procedural elements of law. “Ultra vires” denotes actions beyond legal power or authority, “prima facie” refers to evident or initial assessments without full examination, and “status quo” indicates maintaining the existing state of affairs. Phrases such as “dispossession,” “due process,” and “fundamental rights” invoke constitutional safeguards, while “composition of the Board” and “ex officio” specify organizational structure and roles. These jargons precisely communicate legal nuances to practitioners, ensuring clarity and predictability in interpreting statutory amendments and court rulings.
The Proof
A number of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 were heard by a Division Bench made up of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. The petitioners said that by weakening the independence of waqf organisations, expanding governmental control, and adding clauses that would deprive waqfs of property without due process, the revisions breached the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
The bench imposed partial stays on clauses that raised significant prima facie concerns, but it refused to delay the entire Act. The Court noted that, in light of the presumption of validity inherent to legislation under Article 13, an interim stay must be used cautiously. However, the Court fulfilled its constitutional obligation in areas where the modifications significantly impacted property rights and religious liberties.
Case Analysis: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Background of the Amended Act:
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, amended the 1995 Unified Waqf Act to enhance accountability and address misuse of waqf properties. Major reforms include:
Introduction of Section 3C, providing verification mechanisms to identify government vs. waqf property.
Section 3(r) redefined “waqf” to require the person creating the waqf to have practiced Islam for at least five years.
Increased non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.
Expanded CEO powers and uniform property review protocols under Sections 23 and 36.
Petitioners’ Contentions:
Petitioners challenged the Act as unconstitutional on several grounds:
Violation of Articles 14 and 15 (discrimination against Muslims in property administration).
Infringement of Articles 25 and 26 (rights to freely practice and manage religion).
Interference with Articles 29 and 30 (cultural and minority institution autonomy).
Breach of Article 300A (deprivation of property without due process).
They cited key precedents asserting protection of religious endowments from arbitrary state interference.
Government’s Defense:
The Union Government argued that the amendments promote secular regulatory oversight consistent with Article 25(2)(a), ensuring parity with other religious endowments laws and enhancing transparency.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Interim Directions:
Section 3(r): Stayed the 5-year Islamic practice requirement until States frame clear rules, citing lack of a rational nexus and equality concerns.
Section 3C: Stayed provisions allowing a designated officer to decide property status and amend records before tribunal adjudication, protecting waqf properties from premature dispossession.
Property Protection: Maintained the status quo for waqf properties during tribunal proceedings; no dispossession or record modification allowed.
Board Composition: Allowed non-Muslim members but capped them (4/22 in Central Council, 3/11 in Boards), ensuring proportional secular participation without diluting community representation.
CEO Appointment: Directed preference for a Muslim CEO, upholding community representation within a secular framework.
The Court’s order reflects a calibrated approach respecting both constitutional protections for religious freedoms and the State’s regulatory role, maintaining judicial restraint while protecting fundamental rights during ongoing litigation.
Case Laws and Doctrinal References
The Shirur Mutt Case – established the principle that religious denominations have the right to own and manage property without undue state interference, though secular administration can be regulated. The current judgment parallels this doctrine by safeguarding waqf property and management autonomy.
Azeez Basha v. Union of India – held that institutions created by statute cannot claim minority rights under Articles 29–30. The case helps contextualize debates around whether statutory waqf boards can invoke religious autonomy against reform legislation.
K.P. Mohammed Kunhi v. State of Kerala – emphasized that waqf properties are held in trust for religious purposes and cannot be diverted without due process. The same principle informs the Court’s restriction on altering waqf property records under Section 3C.
Constitutional and Legislative Context of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 emphasises constitutional pluralism by reiterating protections under Articles 14 and 26(b) that protect religious community autonomy while citing Article 25(2)(a), which allows the State to regulate secular aspects of religious practices. This equilibrium ensures procedural justice and maintains the status quo of waqf properties while awaiting judicial decision, preventing extreme religious freedom or unrestricted governmental authority from taking hold.
The Act gives Parliament the authority to adopt laws pertaining to trusts, including waqfs, under Entry 10 of the Concurrent List. However, there is a complicated federal overlap because Entry 28 of the State List gives States the primary authority to regulate religious institutions. The degree of federal versus state authority over minority religious endowments will probably be made clear by the upcoming legal proceedings.
From a policy standpoint, the Court’s restrained judicial intervention indicates support for administrative transparency and accountability reform, so long as the laws uphold community integrity and minority rights without going beyond the bounds of the constitution. This promotes a fair governance structure for waqf institutions.
Conclusion
Judicial moderation is demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s interim order, which upholds rights, respects religion, and acknowledges reform. The bench upheld the constitutional balance between secular government and religious autonomy by declining to suspend the entire Act while maintaining important provisions that undermine public trust.
Its guidelines for the definition of waqf, property enquiries, administrative structure, and appointment standards demonstrate a comprehensive, rights-conscious interpretation of the Constitution. Whether the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 passes the test of reasonableness, proportionality, and constitutional morality will probably be determined at the upcoming merits hearing.
FAQS
1. What is the central constitutional question in the Waqf Amendment case?
The key issue is whether the 2025 amendments disproportionately interfere with Muslim religious institutions’ management, violating Articles 25–26, and whether the State’s expanded powers are reasonable under Article 25(2).
2. Does the Supreme Court’s order strike down any provision?
No. The Court has only stayed certain clauses—especially those likely to cause deprivation of property or arbitrary interference—pending final adjudication.
3. What is the effect of the Court’s directions on waqf properties?
Waqfs cannot be dispossessed, nor can changes be made to revenue or Board records until the Waqf Tribunal decides ownership, preventing administrative overreach.
4. Can non-Muslims still be appointed to Waqf Boards?
Yes, but their number is constitutionally limited to ensure proportional representation – up to 4 out of 22 in the Central Waqf Council and 3 out of 11 in State Boards.
5. Does this order finalize the validity of the Act?
No. It is an interim protection order. The constitutionality of the Act will be fully adjudicated after detailed hearings on merits and State responses.
