Supreme Court Limits Immediate Effect Of Key Waqf Amendment Provisions, Grants Targeted Interim Relief

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard consolidated challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2025 and connected matters. Petitioners principally questioned amendments that de-recognised “waqf by user”, introduced a special procedure for Government properties (Section 3C), imposed new conditions for creation and registration of waqfs, and altered the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.

The Court declined to stay the impugned Act in its entirety but granted limited, specific interim relief. It accepted the settled principle that courts should be “very slow in granting interim relief by way of staying the provisions of an enactment” and therefore refused a blanket injunction, while protecting parties’ interests where immediate implementation could cause irreparable change. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court quoted the long-standing maxim that the “presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment.”

Key directions issued were: the phrase in Section 3(r) requiring a person to “show or demonstrate that he is practising Islam for at least five years” before creating a waqf stood stayed until rule-making provided a procedure to determine that condition; the proviso to Section 3C(2) of the Amended Act (“such property shall not be treated as waqf property till the designated officer submits his report”) and sub‑sections (3) and (4) of Section 3C were stayed; the Court ordered that where inquiries under Section 3C were initiated, waqfs would not be dispossessed nor would revenue or Board records be altered until a Tribunal under Section 83 finally adjudicated title, and no third‑party rights could be created in the interim. To avoid perceived overreach, the Court directed that the Central Waqf Council should have at most four non‑Muslim members and each State Board at most three non‑Muslim members, and urged that, where practicable, the Board Chief Executive Officer be a Muslim. The Court noted legislative history and public interest concerns about encroachment of State lands and recorded an assurance earlier placed on record that “no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council and the Waqf Boards … till the next date of hearing.”

Background Petitions filed by multiple litigants challenged numerous amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995 introduced by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution. The principal contest centred on amendments affecting: (i) the deletion/conditioning of “waqf by user” in Section 3(r); (ii) Section 3C creating a mechanism for identifying Government properties declared as waqf; and (iii) changes to the constitution and membership of Central and State Waqf bodies. Petitioners argued the changes were discriminatory, arbitrary, retrospective in effect, and handed excessive control to the State and non‑Muslim functionaries; they sought an interim stay. The Union of India and supporting intervenors argued the amendments responded to longstanding mismanagement, misuse and encroachment — a legislative trajectory traced back to the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 and subsequent statutes and committees — and stressed the presumption of constitutionality. The Court reviewed legislative history, the Wakf Enquiry Committee recommendations, prior parliamentary deliberations and case law, and held that while many amendments were prima facie within legislative competence, specific provisions risked immediate and irreversible change to titles and records; accordingly narrow interim measures were necessary. The petitions for an across‑the‑board stay were refused; specified parts were stayed and protective directions were issued. The Court noted that final adjudication on challenged provisions remained open and may be addressed in the substantive hearing and by the Tribunals and High Courts in appeals.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1116) Case Title: IN RE: THE WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025 (and connected petitions) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate; Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate; Shri C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate; Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, Senior Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate; Shri Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate; Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate; Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, Senior Advocate.