Why in News?

• The Supreme Court of India passed an interim order staying select provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, while refusing to impose a blanket stay on the entire law.
• The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 (passed in April 2025) had introduced sweeping changes in the management of Waqf properties, leading to widespread constitutional challenges.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background - Challenge to the Act
• Supreme Court’s Interim Relief
• Provisions not Stayed
• Significance of the Interim Order
• Broader Concerns
• Conclusion

Background - Challenge to the Act:

• Petitioners: Political leaders and organisations (including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, YSR Congress, and CPI). Around 65 petitions consolidated before the Supreme Court.
• Grounds of challenge: Violation of Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution and alleged infringement of the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing Waqf properties.
• Test of constitutionality:
  • Generally, no law is stayed in its entirety because the Constitution’s Article 13(2) clearly says that only the provisions that contravene fundamental rights are void.
  • The bench did exactly this in the interim order and stayed a few provisions of the Act.

Supreme Court’s Interim Relief:

• Powers of District Collectors (Section 3C):
  • Provision stayed: District Collectors’ powers to declare a Waqf property as government property during inquiry.
  • Reason: Prima facie arbitrary and contrary to the principle of separation of powers.
  • Interim safeguard:
    • Property to retain Waqf status during inquiry.
    • Waqfs not to be dispossessed.
    • No third-party rights to be created until final decision by a Waqf Tribunal.
• Inclusion of non-muslims in Waqf Boards:
• The new law allowed for a non-Muslim majority in Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council.
• Direction issued by SC to avoid ambiguity:
  • Central Waqf Council, which has 22 members, shall not consist of more than four non-Muslim members.
  • State Waqf Boards, with 11 members, shall not have more than three non-Muslim members.
• Rationale: To prevent violation of a community's right to religious self-management.
• Five-year rule for practising Islam:
  • Provision stayed: Requirement that only a Muslim practising Islam for at least 5 years could create a Waqf.
  • Condition: Stay will continue until the government frames rules specifying mechanisms to determine religious practice.

Provisions not Stayed:

• Abolition of “Waqf by Use”:
  • Background: This long-standing principle meant that land used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes for a long time could be deemed to be a Waqf even if it was not formally registered as such.
  • Petitioners’ argument: They had strongly opposed the omission of the concept of “Waqf by use”.
  • Government stance: The government had argued that this concept was being misused to encroach upon government lands.
  • Court’s view: The court did not find a prima facie case to stay the prospective abolition of this concept.
• Applicability of the Limitation Act:
  • Earlier law (1995 Act): It had specifically excluded the application of the Limitation Act, which allowed Waqfs to act against encroachments on their properties without any time limit.
  • Amendment (2025 Act): The 2025 law removed this exemption, meaning legal claims against encroachment must be made within a specific period.
  • Court’s observation: This corrects earlier discrimination; provision not stayed.

Significance of the Interim Order:

• Balances community rights with government’s regulatory powers.
• Prevents arbitrary dispossession of Waqf properties while ensuring disputes are adjudicated by Waqf Tribunals.
• Provides clarity on non-Muslim participation limits in Waqf bodies.

Broader Concerns:

• Property rights vs. religious law:
  • The court upheld the exclusion of non-Muslims from creating Waqf, despite historical precedents.
  • For example, in Motishah v. Abdul Gaffar (1956), the Nagpur HC upheld the right of non-Muslims to create a waqf.
  • Critics argue it infringes property rights and limits philanthropy for secular causes (schools, hospitals, roads).
• Secular state dilemma: Allowing officials to judge “good Muslims” vs “bad Muslims” challenges India’s secular and liberal democratic framework.
• Comparative lens: Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain endowment laws have their own limitations, raising parity questions.
• Missed opportunity: The Act could have been a step toward Uniform Civil Code (UCC) covering all religious endowments.

Conclusion:

• The matter remains sub judice, with the stay operative until final adjudication of constitutional validity.
• The case will test the balance between religious freedoms under Article 26, secular state oversight, and property rights.
• A final ruling will have significant implications for the governance of Waqf properties, minority rights, and the principle of separation of powers in India’s constitutional framework.