Supreme Court Halts Key Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act Amid Nationwide Protests

The Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended several contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, citing concerns over potential "arbitrary" exercises of power.

The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, comes in response to petitions challenging the law’s constitutionality, which sparked widespread protests across the country.

The court declined to stay the entire statute but paused specific sections pending further adjudication. Notably, it halted provisions granting district Collectors sweeping authority to act as final arbiters in disputes over Waqf property ownership. The bench emphasised that allowing Collectors to adjudicate citizens’ rights violates the principle of separation of powers.

"No third-party rights can be created until a tribunal adjudicates the matter," the court ruled, staying these powers.

Additionally, the court suspended a clause requiring that only individuals practising Islam for at least five years can declare a Waqf, citing its lack of clear mechanisms and potential for arbitrary enforcement. The bench also limited non-Muslim representation to three members on Waqf boards and four in the Central Waqf Council.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, passed by Parliament and receiving presidential assent in April 2025, triggered protests from Muslim organisations, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which labelled it unconstitutional and a means to seize Waqf properties. Critics highlighted the risk of illegitimate claims on Waqf land due to the Collector’s expanded role. The government, however, defended the amendments, arguing they address longstanding issues like encroachments and land disputes involving Waqf properties.

Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, a member of AIMPLB, welcomed the court’s decision, stating that key concerns raised by the board, including provisions on "Waqf by User" and protected monuments, were addressed. "The five-year practice clause has been removed, and many of our points have been largely accepted," Ilyas told agencies, expressing satisfaction with the ruling.

The court clarified that it presumes the constitutionality of statutes and intervenes only in exceptional cases. The paused provisions will remain suspended until the petitions challenging the Act’s legality are resolved.