The Supreme Court on Monday issued an important interim order on the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. While it did not suspend the entire law, the court put a temporary halt to some of its most controversial provisions.
The case has attracted wide attention, as nearly 65 petitions were filed challenging the Act, including by several political leaders and organisations.
The stay will remain in force until the Supreme Court gives its final ruling on the matter. Here’s a simple explainer of what the court has ordered and why the law is being challenged.
Why the Waqf Amendment Act is controversial
The Waqf Act deals with properties dedicated by Muslims for religious or charitable use. Earlier this year, Parliament passed amendments to the law, which many petitioners argued interfere with the Muslim community’s fundamental right to manage its religious affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Those opposing the Act include AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, the YSR Congress Party, and the Communist Party of India. They argued that the new provisions give too much power to government officials and dilute community control over Waqf institutions.
What the Supreme Court has put on hold
1. Collector’s power over Waqf properties
A major point of dispute was Section 3C, which allowed district collectors or designated officers to examine whether a Waqf property was actually government land. The law also said that as soon as such an inquiry began, the land would stop being treated as Waqf property.
The Supreme Court has stayed this part. Now, a property will continue to be recognised as Waqf property until the inquiry is fully resolved. The court also put on hold the provision that allowed revenue officers to directly change Waqf and government records, calling it “prima facie arbitrary.”
However, the court added a safeguard: while Waqfs cannot be dispossessed during the inquiry, they also cannot create third-party rights (such as selling or leasing disputed land) until a tribunal gives a final decision.
2. Non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards
Another controversial change was the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Petitioners argued that this violated the right of Muslims to manage their religious institutions.
To address this, the court has set limits. Out of 22 members in the Central Waqf Council, only up to four can be non-Muslims. Similarly, in State Waqf Boards, with 11 members, only up to three may be non-Muslims.
3. Five-Year rule for creating Waqf
The amendment had also introduced a new rule: only a person who has been practising Islam for at least five years could create a Waqf. Petitioners called this arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Supreme Court has stayed this provision but left scope for the government to create clear rules on how such practice would be verified. Until then, this rule will not apply.
What the Court did not stay
The court did not block all provisions of the Act. Two important changes remain in force:
End of “Waqf by use”: Earlier, land that had been used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes over a long period could automatically be treated as Waqf. The new law removed this concept, as the government argued it was often misused to claim public land. The court has not stayed this change.
Application of the Limitation Act: Previously, Waqfs could challenge encroachments on their land at any time, without a time limit. The amendment now applies the Limitation Act, meaning such cases must be filed within a fixed period. The court upheld this change, noting that it brings parity with other property disputes.
What happens next
The Supreme Court made it clear that its observations are only prima facie (preliminary) and meant to guide the interim stay. The final decision will come after a full hearing on the constitutional validity of the law.