Case Citation & Heading

In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2025 (Along with a batch of other connected petitions)
Supreme Court of India
Order Dated: September 15, 2025
Bench: The Chief Justice of India and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

Related Law & Sections

• The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: This is the central legislation under challenge. It is an amendment to the existing Waqf Act, 1995.

• Specific Sections of the Amended Act under Scrutiny:
  Section 3(r): Defines a "waqf," including a controversial clause related to a person "professing Islam for at least five years."
  Section 3C: Pertains to the process of designating a property as a Waqf property and the powers of a "designated officer."
  Section 9: Governs the constitution of the Central Waqf Council.
  Section 14: Governs the constitution of State Waqf Boards.
  Section 23: Concerns the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board.
  Section 83: Relates to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal to determine disputes over Waqf properties.

Summary of the Order

1. Basic Information & Nature of the Petitions

This order is an interim ruling from the Supreme Court of India on a large batch of writ petitions (including several PILs) that collectively challenge the constitutional validity and various provisions of The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The petitioners had requested the Court to completely stay (pause the implementation of) the entire amended Act until the final decision on its legality was made. The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments from a large number of lawyers representing various parties and intervenors.

2. The Court's Key Decision & Interim Directions

The two-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, delivered the following verdict:

• Main Prayer Rejected: The Supreme Court refused to grant a complete stay on the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Court stated that no case was made out to halt the entire statute.

• Partial Stay and Protective Directions: However, to protect the interests of all parties and balance equities during the pendency of the case, the Court issued specific, limited stays and important directives on certain provisions:
  Stay on Part of Section 3(r): The phrase “any person showing or demonstrating that he is professing Islam for at least five years” is stayed. This stay will remain until the State Government frames rules establishing a clear mechanism to determine how this "profession of Islam for five years" is to be verified.
  Stay on Parts of Section 3C: The following parts of Section 3C are stayed:
  The Proviso to Sub-section (2), which stated that a property would not be treated as a Waqf property until a designated officer submits a report.
  Sub-sections (3) and (4), which allowed the designated officer to determine a property as government property and direct corrections in revenue and Waqf records.
  Protection of Property Status: Until the Waqf Tribunal (under Section 83) and subsequently the High Court finally decide on the title of a property under dispute:
  Waqfs cannot be dispossessed of the property.
  The existing entries in revenue and Waqf records cannot be changed.
  Most crucially, no third-party rights (like selling or leasing) can be created on such properties from the start of an inquiry under Section 3C until the final decision.
  Composition of Waqf Bodies:
  Central Waqf Council (Sec. 9): Cannot have more than 4 non-Muslim members out of a total of 22.
  State Waqf Board (Sec. 14): Cannot have more than 3 non-Muslim members out of a total of 11.
  Guideline for CEO Appointment (Sec. 23): While not staying this section, the Court directed that as far as possible, the Chief Executive Officer (who is the ex-officio Secretary of the Board) should be appointed from amongst the Muslim community.

• Observations are Prima Facie: The Court explicitly clarified that all its observations in this order are only a prima facie (at first glance) consideration for the purpose of deciding the interim stay. These views will not prejudice the final arguments on the validity of the Act.

In-Depth Analysis of the Order

1. Judicial Restraint and Balance: The order exemplifies the Supreme Court's principle of judicial restraint. The Court was cautious not to halt a law passed by the legislature outright, acknowledging its prima facie validity. Instead, it targeted only specific provisions that it found potentially most problematic or lacking in procedural safeguards until the final hearing.

2. Addressing Vagueness and Arbitrary Power: The stay on the "professing Islam for five years" clause in Section 3(r) indicates the Court's concern over vague legal standards. Without defined rules for verification, this clause could be misused arbitrarily. The Court effectively pushed the responsibility back to the government to create a fair and transparent process.

3. Safeguarding Property Rights and Due Process: The directives concerning Section 3C are the most significant. The Court recognized the immense danger of allowing a bureaucratic "designated officer" to unilaterally alter property titles and records without a full judicial process. By staying these provisions and freezing the status of properties (preventing the creation of third-party rights), the Court protected existing stakeholders from irreparable harm during litigation, upholding the principle of due process.

4. Ensuring Secular Character and Community Representation: The caps on non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Boards show the Court's intent to preserve the essential character of these bodies. While promoting inclusivity, the Court ensured that the administration of Muslim religious properties remains primarily under the control of the community it is meant to serve, aligning with the secular nature of the legislation.

5. A Procedural Lifeline, Not a Final Victory: This order is not a final judgment on the Act's validity. It is a procedural measure to maintain the status quo and prevent potential injustice while the complex constitutional challenges are thoroughly heard. It balances the state's power to implement its law with the court's duty to protect fundamental rights from immediate, irreparable damage.

In essence, the Supreme Court declined to block the entire law but stepped in to neuter its most immediate and potentially oppressive powers, ensuring that the final verdict on the law's validity will be rendered after a full hearing, without properties being alienated or rights being extinguished in the interim.