Supreme Court Halts Denotification of Waqf Properties, Sets Stage for Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 Challenge

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has directed that existing waqf properties, whether registered or declared, including those recognized as "waqf by user," shall not be denotified until the next hearing in the ongoing challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the week commencing May 5, 2025, granting the Union government seven days to file its response to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. Petitioners have been given five days thereafter to file their rejoinders.
A Balancing Act by the Apex Court
The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, alongside Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, issued the interim directive on April 17, 2025, to maintain the status quo on waqf properties. The court also recorded assurances from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, that no appointments will be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards under the contentious provisions of the 2025 Act, particularly those allowing non-Muslim representation, until the matter is revisited. This move aims to prevent any drastic changes to the administration of waqf properties while the court deliberates on the Act’s legality.
The Supreme Court’s order comes amidst a heated political and legal debate over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which has sparked protests and polarized opinions across the country. The bench emphasized its intent to balance equities, with CJI Khanna noting, “We do not want the situation prevailing today to change drastically, as it affects a lot of people.” The court also expressed concern over reports of violence following the Act’s enactment, describing such incidents as “disturbing” while the matter is sub judice.


The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025: Key Provisions and Challenges
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3 and the Rajya Sabha on April 4, with Presidential assent on April 5, amends the Waqf Act, 1995, to introduce reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the management of waqf properties—religious endowments dedicated for pious, charitable, or religious purposes under Islamic law. The Act, now renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, incorporates 25 recommendations from a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. Key changes include:Abolition of Waqf by User: The Act eliminates the judicially recognized concept of “waqf by user,” which allowed properties used for religious or charitable purposes over time to be declared waqf, even without formal documentation. Critics argue this could jeopardize the status of centuries-old waqf properties, such as mosques and graveyards, many of which lack deeds.

Inclusion of Non-Muslims: The Act mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, a provision petitioners claim interferes with the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious institutions.

Enhanced State Control: The Act empowers District Collectors to adjudicate disputes over waqf properties, raising concerns about executive overreach and potential bias, as Collectors may act as “judges in their own cause” when government land is involved.

Mandatory Registration and Limitations: The Act requires waqf creation to be accompanied by a deed and imposes a five-year practice of Islam as a prerequisite for creating a waqf, which petitioners argue is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Over 70 petitions, filed by a diverse group including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, and organizations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, challenge the Act’s constitutionality. They argue that it violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to manage religious affairs), and 300A (property rights). The petitioners contend that the Act discriminates against Muslims by imposing restrictions not applied to other religious endowments, such as Hindu trusts, and undermines the principle of “once a waqf, always a waqf” upheld by the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the Centre, supported by six BJP-ruled states—Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh—defends the Act as a necessary reform to address mismanagement and encroachments on waqf properties. Solicitor General Mehta argued that the legislation followed extensive consultations, with “lakhs of representations” highlighting issues like entire villages or private properties being declared waqf. The government asserts that the Act promotes gender equality by mandating female representation and ensures inclusivity by requiring diverse Muslim sect representation on boards.

Political Fault Lines and Public Sentiment
The Waqf (Amendment) Act has deepened political divisions, with opposition parties accusing the BJP-led government of targeting Muslim religious institutions under the guise of reform. Congress leader Imran Pratapgarhi welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim relief, stating, “The Court raised almost all the issues we raised in Parliament.” Meanwhile, BJP leaders, including Jagdambika Pal, have dismissed the opposition’s challenges as political posturing for “vote bank” politics, arguing that the Act rectifies flaws in the 2013 amendments made under the UPA government.

Public sentiment, as reflected on platforms like X, is mixed. Some users praise the Supreme Court’s interim order for protecting existing waqf properties, with one post noting, “Any property, be it Waqf by User or Registered, govt will not be denotifying till we hear the matter.” Others, however, view the Act as a step toward transparency, with a user stating, “The opposition is being exposed, so they have filed a plea in the Supreme Court to bake their political bread.”
The Road Ahead
The Supreme Court’s decision to limit arguments to five petitioners and modify the case title to “In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025” aims to streamline the proceedings, given the volume of pleas. The court’s refusal to grant a complete stay on the Act, as requested by petitioners like senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, indicates a cautious approach, with CJI Khanna noting that staying legislation at a preliminary stage is rare unless exceptional circumstances exist.

As the Centre prepares its response, the May 5 hearing will be pivotal in determining whether the Act’s provisions align with constitutional principles. The court’s interim order ensures that no immediate changes will disrupt the status of waqf properties or board compositions, providing temporary relief to petitioners while allowing the government to present its case.
For now, the Supreme Court’s directive underscores its commitment to preserving stability while navigating a complex legal and political issue. As the debate over the Waqf (Amendment) Act unfolds, it remains a litmus test for India’s ability to balance religious autonomy, administrative reform, and constitutional guarantees in a diverse democracy.