 |
| Supreme Court of India By PTI |
The apex court's decision came in response to multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation, which critics argue discriminates against Muslims and violates fundamental rights. While refusing a blanket stay, the court acknowledged that some sections needed "protection" and imposed specific limitations on the Act's implementation.
Court Limits Non-Muslim Representation
The Supreme Court directed that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslim members, while state Waqf boards should be limited to no more than three non-Muslim members. Additionally, the court clarified that "as far as possible, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board should be a Muslim," though it did not stay the amendment allowing non-Muslim CEO appointments.
The bench emphasized that laws enacted by Parliament carry a presumption of validity and stays should only be granted in "rarest of rare cases." However, it noted that any determination of waqf property by government officials would remain subject to jurisdictional High Court orders.
Specific Provisions Stayed
The court specifically stayed four key sections of the Act:
- Section 3(r) : The five-year Islam practice requirement, citing potential for arbitrary exercise of power until rules are formulated
- Section 2(c) proviso : Provisions regarding waqf property classification
- Section 3(c) : Related procedural requirements
- Section 23 : Ensuring ex-officio officers are from the Muslim community "as far as possible"
The court also blocked the provision granting collectors the power to determine whether properties declared as waqf actually belong to the government, stating this would violate the separation of powers principle.
Legal Arguments and Government Defense
During hearings in May, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the legislation, arguing that waqf management had been misused, with monuments being converted into shops and unauthorized alterations being made. He contended that the five-year practice requirement was necessary to prevent fraud, distinguishing between creating a waqf and donating to one.
"Creating a waqf is different from donating to a waqf," Mehta argued. "How can a non-Muslim be allowed to create a waqf? He can always donate to a waqf."
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing petitioners, strongly opposed these arguments, questioning whether the government could claim waqf properties as government land through "legislative fiat" due to its own failure to conduct proper surveys.
Background and Scale of Dispute
The Centre revealed in its affidavit that over 20 lakh hectares were added to waqf land after 2013, compared to approximately 18.29 lakh acres created over the previous century including pre-independence periods. The government argued this dramatic increase justified regulatory oversight.
President Droupadi Murmu had given her assent to the Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 on April 5, following heated parliamentary debates in both houses. The legislation aimed to reform waqf property management and prevent alleged misuse of religious endowments.
The Supreme Court heard five representative petitions from over 100 similar challenges filed against the Act. The matter had been reserved for judgment since May 22, with the court noting the impossibility of hearing all petitions individually due to their similar nature.
The ruling represents a partial victory for both sides, with the government avoiding a complete stay while petitioners succeeded in blocking several contentious provisions they viewed as discriminatory against the Muslim community.
Social Footer