10 Key Pointers From The Supreme Court’s Interim Judgment On The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025

The Supreme Court stayed certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, until petitions challenging the law’s validity are decided. A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the interim order on Monday. The Court made it clear that it will not stay the entire amendment but will restrict some specific provisions. The case will now proceed for a detailed hearing, where arguments will be examined regarding alleged violations of constitutional rights, property laws, and the principles of separation of powers.

The Court refused to stay the rule mandating the registration of waqf properties, stating that this requirement already existed in earlier laws. Petitioners argued that the time limit for registration might be restrictive, but the bench clarified that it had already addressed this concern in its order. The Court explained that registration plays a key role in ensuring transparency and accountability in managing waqf assets. This decision means that the registration process will continue as usual while other contested provisions remain under judicial scrutiny.

Here are 10 point to summerize: 

1. Supreme Court declined to stay the entire Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, holding that Parliament acted within its legislative competence.

2. Provision requiring a person to be a practicing Muslim for 5 years before creating a waqf was stayed as arbitrary, pending framing of rules by State Governments.

The bench stayed the rule requiring a person to be a practicing Muslim for at least five years before dedicating property as waqf. The judges noted that without clear state rules or mechanisms to examine this requirement, the provision could lead to arbitrary decisions. The Court said that imposing such a condition without guidelines was unfair and could restrict religious rights. The order clarified that the provision will remain suspended until states frame proper rules to determine whether a person qualifies as a practicing Muslim.

3. Provision empowering the District Collector to determine whether a property is waqf was stayed for violating the principle of separation of powers.

The Court also stayed the clause that required a District Collector to submit a report before a property could be declared as waqf. The bench ruled that the Collector cannot adjudicate individual property rights, as this violates the principle of separation of powers. By removing this role from the Collector, the Court protected citizens from executive overreach in religious property disputes. This ensures that only judicial or legally authorized bodies can decide on sensitive property matters, keeping executive authority out of personal rights.

4. Court directed that, as far as possible, the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board should be a Muslim.

5. SC refused to stay the amendment permitting the appointment of non-Muslims as Waqf Board CEOs.

6. Amendments allowing inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils will continue to operate.

7. Bench emphasized that property rights under Article 300A and religious freedoms under Articles 25–26 must be balanced with regulatory oversight.

8. Court clarified that staying two provisions does not affect other amendments dealing with transparency and administration of waqf properties.

9. The interim order will remain in force until final adjudication on the constitutionality of the Act.

10. Case has been listed for detailed hearings on merits regarding alleged violation of minority rights and property rights.

Must Read: Gangster Syndicates Bust In Delhi NCR, 380 Police Deployed, Raids At 25 Hideout Locations