Summary and Analysis of In Re The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 INSC 1116
1. Heading of the Judgment
IN RE: THE WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025
Citation: In Re: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, (2025) INSC 1116 (Supreme Court of India).
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Nature of Proceedings: A batch of Writ Petitions (Civil) challenging the constitutional validity of various sections of The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily deals with the constitutional challenge to specific amendments introduced by The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended The Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Principal Act" or "Original Waqf Act").
The key amended sections under challenge were:
Section 3(r): Redefining "Waqf" to include a requirement of the donor practicing Islam for at least five years and having ownership of the property.
Section 3C: Pertaining to "Wrongful declaration of waqf" on government property.
Section 3D: Voiding declarations of protected monuments as Waqf properties.
Section 3E: Barring declaration of tribal land under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules as Waqf property.
Sections 9 & 14: Changes in the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.
Section 23: Appointment of the Chief Executive Officer.
Section 36: Mandatory registration of Waqfs and consequences of non-registration.
Section 104: Deletion of the provision allowing non-Muslims to donate property for specific Waqfs.
Section 107: Application of the Limitation Act, 1963, to Waqf properties.
Section 108: Deletion of special provisions for evacuee Waqf properties.
Other Referenced Laws:
The Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923
The Wakf Act, 1954
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958
The Limitation Act, 1963
Various State laws protecting tribal land rights.
3. Basic Case Details
Petitioners: Various entities and individuals challenging the 2025 Amendment Act.
Respondents: The Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General, and various supporting intervenors.
Core Challenge: The petitioners argued that the amendments were ultra vires the Constitution of India, violating Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), 19 (Freedom), 21 (Life and liberty), 25 (Freedom of religion), 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (Protection of minority interests), 30 (Right of minorities to establish educational institutions), and 300A (Right to property).
Interim Relief Sought: A stay on the operation of the entire impugned Amendment Act pending the final hearing.
Outcome: The Supreme Court refused to stay the entire Act but granted a partial interim stay on specific provisions and issued specific directions to balance equities.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court's judgment is an interim order deciding whether to stay the operation of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, until the main constitutional challenge is finally heard. The Court applied the well-settled principle that there is a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a legislation and that the courts should be very slow to grant a stay unless the provisions are ex-facie beyond legislative competence, violate fundamental rights, or are manifestly arbitrary.
The Court conducted an in-depth analysis, beginning with the legislative history of Waqf laws in India, from the 1923 Act to the 1995 Act, to understand the context and object behind the 2025 amendments.
A. Legislative History and Object of the Amendments
The Court noted that the concern over mismanagement and misappropriation of Waqf properties has been a persistent legislative worry since 1923. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1923 Act itself highlighted that Waqf endowments were often seen as a "clever device" to evade creditors and the law. The requirement for registration and oversight has been a constant feature. The 1984 amendments, based on the recommendations of the Waqf Enquiry Committee (comprising Muslim members), had even proposed barring unregistered Waqfs from enforcing rights in court, though these were not implemented due to opposition.
The 2025 amendments were thus presented by the Union as a continuation of this effort to streamline administration, prevent encroachment on government and private properties (especially through the concept of "Waqf by user"), and protect the interests of vulnerable sections like Scheduled Tribes.
B. Analysis of Specific Provisions and Interim Directions
The Court analyzed each challenged provision prima facie and issued the following directions:
i. On Section 3(r) - Definition of "Waqf" and the 5-Year Practice Requirement:
Petitioners' Argument: Requiring a person to "show or demonstrate" practice of Islam for five years to create a Waqf was discriminatory and violated Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26, as no similar requirement existed for other religions.
Court's Prima Facie View: The Court found a rational nexus between this requirement and the object of the law. It referred to the historical misuse where people would convert to Islam to evade other laws (e.g., bigamy laws) or creditors under the cloak of a religious dedication. The requirement to prove genuine and sustained practice was seen as a safeguard against such misuse.
Interim Direction: However, the Court stayed this part of Section 3(r) until rules are framed prescribing a mechanism and procedure for determining how a person is to "show or demonstrate" five years of practice. The provision cannot be enforced until this procedural framework is in place.
ii. On Deletion of "Waqf by User" (Section 4(ix)(b)):
Petitioners' Argument: "Waqf by user" is a recognized concept in Muslim law, and its deletion was arbitrary.
Court's Prima Facie View: The Court upheld the prospective deletion. It cited instances like State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board (2022) where thousands of acres of government land were wrongfully notified as Waqf. The legislature was competent to abolish this concept prospectively to prevent such encroachment. Existing registered "Waqf by user" properties would remain protected.
Interim Direction: No stay was granted on this amendment.
iii. On Section 3C - Government Property:
Petitioners' Argument: This section allowed the government to unilaterally "grab" Waqf property. The designated officer (a revenue official) could conduct an inquiry and change revenue records without a judicial process, and the property would cease to be treated as Waqf even during the inquiry.
Court's Prima Facie View: The Court agreed that protecting government property from wrongful encroachment is a valid state objective.
Interim Direction: The Court stayed specific parts of Section 3C:
The proviso to sub-section (2), which stated that the property would not be treated as Waqf property during the inquiry.
Sub-sections (3) and (4), which allowed the designated officer to unilaterally change revenue records and directed the Board to correct its records based on the officer's report.
The Court held that the determination of title must be made by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, i.e., the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act, with a further right of appeal to the High Court. Pending this adjudication, the Waqf cannot be dispossessed, and revenue entries cannot be altered. However, to protect the property, the Court also directed that no third-party rights can be created in such properties from the start of an inquiry until the Tribunal's final decision.
iv. On Section 3D - Protected Monuments:
Petitioners' Argument: It violated the right to practice religion (Articles 25/26) in monuments that were also places of worship.
Court's Prima Facie View: The amendment was based on submissions from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that Waqf boards were obstructing conservation efforts. The Court noted that the Ancient Monuments Act itself protects the right to carry out customary religious observances in protected monuments. Section 3D only prevents the property from being declared a Waqf, not from being used for worship.
Interim Direction: No stay was granted on this provision.
v. On Section 3E - Tribal Land:
Petitioners' Argument: It discriminated against Muslims belonging to Scheduled Tribes by preventing them from creating Waqfs, violating Articles 15, 25, and 26.
Court's Prima Facie View: The Court strongly upheld the provision. It emphasized the unique constitutional protection afforded to Scheduled Tribes under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to safeguard their culture, identity, and land, which is their primary economic resource. The provision was enacted to prevent the exploitation of tribal communities.
Interim Direction: No stay was granted on this provision.
vi. On Sections 9 & 14 - Composition of Waqf Council and Boards:
Petitioners' Argument: Allowing non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards would lead to a non-Muslim majority, resulting in interference in the religious affairs of Muslims.
Union's Assurance: The Solicitor General assured the Court that the number of non-Muslim members would not exceed 4 out of 22 in the Council and 3 out of 11 in a State Board.
Interim Direction: The Court, accepting this assurance, directed that the composition must not exceed these numbers. It noted that the functions of these bodies are largely secular (financial oversight, preventing encroachment, maintenance of records) and do not interfere with core religious activities.
vii. On Section 23 - Chief Executive Officer:
Petitioners' Argument: The amendment removed the requirement for the CEO to be a Muslim, allowing a non-Muslim to hold this influential post.
Court's Prima Facie View: The CEO is an administrative officer under the control of the Board, which would have a Muslim majority. His functions are secular in nature.
Interim Direction: The Court did not stay the provision but directed that "as far as possible, an effort should be made to appoint the Chief Executive Officer... from amongst the Muslim community."
viii. On Section 36 - Mandatory Registration and Bar on Suits:
Petitioners' Argument: Making registration mandatory and barring unregistered Waqfs from enforcing rights in court (sub-section 10) created a "Catch-22" situation and was arbitrary.
Court's Prima Facie View: The Court traced the history of compulsory registration from 1923 and the 1976 recommendation of the Waqf Enquiry Committee for such a bar. It found the provision to be non-discriminatory and in line with laws governing other public trusts. The six-month window and the provision to allow delayed applications for "sufficient cause" were deemed reasonable.
Interim Direction: No stay was granted on this provision.
ix. On Other Provisions (Sections 104, 107, 108):
The Court prima facie found no arbitrariness in:
Deleting Section 104 (non-Muslim donations) as it was made consistent with the new definition of Waqf.
Amending Section 107 to apply the Limitation Act, as it created parity with all other properties.
Deleting Section 108 on evacuee property, as the parent law (Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950) had been repealed.
5. Supreme Court's Final Interim Directions & Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for staying the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The presumption of constitutionality stood, and the amendments were seen as a legislative response to long-standing issues of misuse and encroachment.
However, to balance equities and protect rights until the final hearing, the Court issued the following interim directions, as summarized in the conclusion:
Stay on the "5-year practice" demonstration requirement in Section 3(r) until rules are framed.
Stay on the proviso to Section 3C(2) and all of Sections 3C(3) & (4) concerning the inquiry and alteration of records for government property.
Status quo to be maintained on possession and revenue entries for properties under Section 3C inquiry until the Waqf Tribunal decides the title dispute. No third-party rights to be created in such properties during this period.
A cap on non-Muslim members: a maximum of 4 in the Central Waqf Council and 3 in a State Waqf Board.
A direction to endeavour to appoint a Muslim Chief Executive Officer for the Board.
The Court clarified that all observations were prima facie for the purpose of interim relief and would not prejudice the final arguments on the constitutionality of the Act. The main petitions remain pending for a final hearing.