The Supreme Court delivered an interim judgment on Monday, September 15th, regarding petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act. The court declined to halt the entire law but imposed an interim stay on three sections. A two-member bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, stated that while there was no need to repeal the entire law, certain sections of the new law required legal protection. The court had reserved its decision after a detailed hearing on May 22nd.
Subsequently, Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, released a statement welcoming the court’s decision and expressed gratitude. He stated that the court had taken serious note of the concerns and apprehensions raised by Muslims across the country regarding the new law’s sections, and had imposed an interim stay on three of them.
Maulana Madani asserted that the fight is not over, and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind would continue its legal and democratic struggle until the repeal of this law. He stated that the new Waqf law is a direct assault on the country’s constitution, which not only provides equal rights to citizens and minorities but also grants them full religious freedom.
The President added that the law is a dangerous, unconstitutional conspiracy to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. Therefore, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has challenged the Waqf Act 2025 in the Supreme Court. He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would deliver complete constitutional justice by repealing this law.
Maulana Madani thanked his lawyers, especially Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, and stated that their solid arguments successfully convinced the court that the amendments made in the Waqf law are not only dangerous for Waqf properties but also unconstitutional, thereby deeply harming the religious freedom of Muslims.
The court has imposed a stay on specific provisions. The new law stated that only a person practicing Islam for the past five years could create a Waqf. The court stayed this provision, stating that it would not be implemented until state governments determine a process for it.
The new law vested all powers in the District Collector, granting him complete authority in determining the status of a disputed Waqf property. The court also stayed this, stating that no changes would be made to the disputed Waqf property until a decision from a tribunal or court. The court also stated that no party could transfer rights to a third party until the dispute is resolved. The court clarified that the Commissioner cannot be given the authority to determine the ownership of any property.
The court also clarified that the Central Waqf Council would not have more than four non-Muslim members, and State Waqf Boards would not have more than three non-Muslim members. While the court did not stay the appointment of non-Muslim CEOs in the State Waqf Boards, it emphasized that Muslim CEOs should be appointed wherever possible. The court did not interfere with the registration conditions, noting that registration of Waqf properties has been ongoing.
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai read the decision, stating that the court can impose a stay on or repeal a law only in extraordinary circumstances. He mentioned that while the entire law was challenged by the petitioners, the challenge was very significant regarding some sections.
The central government agreed that no Waqf property, including Waqf by-use, declared through notification or registration would be de-notified or have its status or position changed.