On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 to remain in force but chose to pause a few controversial sections. The provisions placed on hold include the one giving district collectors authority to decide whether land claimed as waqf is actually state property, as well as the rule that only a legitimate property owner who has followed Islam for at least five years may establish waqf through a registered deed.
While announcing the order, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai clarified that the five-year requirement for being a practising Muslim will apply only after state governments notify detailed rules for determining religious adherence.
The bench, which included Justice AG Masih, ruled that compulsory registration of waqf lands on a nationwide portal must continue without interference. At the same time, it struck down the clause giving collectors the final word on whether a property is waqf or government land, and barred them from altering revenue records on their own. Such disputes, the court said, must remain open to examination by waqf tribunals and high courts, and until those cases are settled, third-party rights cannot be created over the land in question.
The judges also directed that the Central Waqf Council, functioning under the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs and chaired ex officio by the Union minister, cannot have more than four members who are not Muslim. In the same spirit, state waqf boards were told not to include more than three non-Muslim members. The court added that the chief executive officers of these boards should, as a matter of preference, be Muslims, even though the new law does not specifically make this a condition.
While announcing the verdict, Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai reminded that every law carries a presumption of constitutionality, but he also said that adequate protections are essential, and that justified freezing some of the new provisions.
The judgment follows an earlier hearing on August 22, when the bench had refused to halt a government notification requiring all waqf lands to be registered on a digital portal within six months. Issued on June 6 by the Minority Affairs Ministry, that notification directed that every waqf property be entered into the UMEED platform, a system meant to centralise information across the country.
On that day, the Chief Justice noted that the court could not issue an interim stay since the matter had already been reserved for judgment. He told lawyers seeking relief that compliance was necessary for now and the court’s final ruling would address the concerns raised.
According to the government, UMEED is intended to build a transparent, central database of waqf properties complete with photographs and geotagged details. Any land not entered in time could be marked as disputed and sent to a tribunal for further scrutiny.
The challenges to the law were heard over three days in May, and the bench kept its decision pending from May 22. During those hearings, the court observed that keeping a formal list of waqf properties has been part of Indian law for more than a hundred years.
The judges recalled that even under the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923, details of waqf had to be provided though registration was not compulsory, and by the 1954 Act such registration became the norm. A government report in 1976 had also underlined the importance of proper registration. The court remarked that the legal framework since 1923 has consistently emphasised this process.
Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that making custodians of waqf responsible for registration penalises the community for what he called decades of government inaction. He said that the state had been tasked since 1954 with identifying such properties, and its failure could not now be turned into a burden on Muslims. In his view, this scheme undermined the constitutional right under Article 26 to manage their own religious property.
The petitioners also objected to the clause requiring that only Muslims who had practised their faith for at least five years could dedicate land as waqf, pointing out that no such restriction exists in the case of other religious trusts or endowments.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the changes, arguing that the 2013 amendment, which permitted any individual to create waqf, was conceptually wrong. Since waqf is an Islamic institution, he said, it could not logically be open to people of other faiths. He maintained that the 2025 law was aimed at strengthening oversight and preventing abuse.
Another provision under challenge was the ban on creating waqf over tribal land. Mehta said this was needed to protect vulnerable communities and their traditions, citing recommendations made by a joint parliamentary committee. The judges, however, questioned the reasoning, asking why a uniform religion should be prevented from operating over tribal lands if no fraud or misrepresentation was involved.
Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi stressed that the law placed Muslims at a disadvantage and threatened to erase properties historically regarded as waqf. Dhavan noted that charity is central to Islam, while Singhvi warned that the registration process and state involvement risked creating an endless cycle of disputes blocking recognition of legitimate endowments.
States and intervenors siding with the Union highlighted alleged misuse, claiming that vast tracts of land, sometimes entire villages, had been declared waqf without sufficient basis.
Altogether, the petitions have challenged the statute on constitutional grounds, alleging that it violates fundamental rights and disrupts long-standing religious practices. The Centre has stood by the law, calling it a reform necessary to ensure accountability, transparency, and protection from encroachment.
