New Delhi, September 15 — The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the operation of several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, while reserving its decision on broader challenges to the law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih ordered a temporary halt on clauses relating to the creation of waqf, the treatment of waqf properties, and the powers of executive authorities in determining ownership rights.
Among the provisions stayed was Section 3(1)(r), which required an individual to have been a practicing Muslim for at least five years before creating a waqf. The Court ruled that this condition would remain in abeyance until state governments frame appropriate rules to assess compliance.
The bench also suspended the operation of Sections 3C(2), 3C(3), and 3C(4). These clauses mandated that waqf property would not be recognized until a government-appointed officer verified encroachment status and, in cases where the officer deemed the land to be government property, directed necessary corrections in revenue and waqf board records.
CJI Gavai observed that allowing executive officers, such as collectors, to adjudicate property rights undermined the principle of separation of powers. “The executive cannot be permitted to determine the rights of citizens,” he remarked.
However, the Court declined to stay provisions that allow non-Muslim members to be nominated to Waqf Boards. It clarified that, as far as practicable, ex officio members should be Muslims, with the Central Waqf Council restricted to a maximum of four non-Muslim members and State Waqf Boards limited to three.
The interim order also addressed three contentious issues raised during hearings: the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, by user, or by deed. These questions arose in response to multiple petitions challenging the validity of the amended law.
The bench, which had reserved its orders on May 22 after hearing extensive arguments from both sides — including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre and counsels for the petitioners — delivered its interim decision on Monday.
The case remains under judicial consideration, with a final verdict expected after further hearings.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.