The Supreme Court on Monday (September 15) declined to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety but suspended several of its controversial provisions.

The court put on hold key sections, including those empowering district collectors to determine whether a property claimed as waqf actually belongs to the government, and the clause requiring that only a lawful property owner who has been practising Islam for at least five years can create a waqf through a formal deed.

While reading out the operative part of the judgment, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai clarified that “the requirement of being a practising Muslim for five years will take effect only after state governments frame rules on how to determine a person's adherence to Islam.”

The bench, also comprising Justice AG Masih, ruled that the mandatory registration of waqf properties on a centralised portal should proceed, but suspended the provision authorising collectors to make a final determination on the nature of disputed properties and to alter revenue records.

The court held that such determinations must remain subject to adjudication by waqf tribunals and the concerned high courts, adding that no third-party rights could be created in disputed properties until those proceedings are concluded.

The court further directed that the Central Waqf Council, an advisory body under the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs chaired ex officio by the Union minister, should not have more than four non-Muslim members, and state waqf boards should not include more than three non-Muslim members.

The bench also suggested that chief executive officers of waqf boards should preferably be Muslims, though the amended law does not expressly mandate this.

Delivering the judgment, CJI Gavai underscored that “legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutionality,” while stressing that certain safeguards were necessary, warranting the suspension of some provisions of the new law.

The judgment follows an August 22 hearing, when the CJI-led bench refused to stay a Union government notification mandating registration of all waqf properties across India on a centralised digital portal within six months.

The UMEED (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development) platform, launched by the Ministry of Minority Affairs on June 6, aims to create a centralised and transparent repository of waqf property details, including photographs and geotagged locations. Properties not registered within the stipulated time frame risk being labelled as disputed and possibly referred to a tribunal.

During the hearing, the CJI remarked, “How can we pass an interim order when the judgment has been reserved in the issue? Sorry! You comply with whatever is required. We will consider everything in our order” Hindustan Times reported.

The petitions challenging the Act had been argued over three days in May, with the bench reserving orders on May 22. At that time, the court noted that keeping an inventory of waqf properties had been part of India’s legal framework for over a century.

“We have seen the law since the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923. Technically, the 1923 law did not have a provision for registration but information about the Waqf had to be provided. From the Waqf Act, 1954, registration was required. There was a report of 1976 which revealed why registration was necessary. From 1923 till 2025, for over 100 years, the scheme of various enactments had emphasised on registration,” the bench observed.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the new law shifted the onus of registration onto custodians of waqf properties, effectively punishing the community for the state’s longstanding failure to survey and identify such properties since 1954.

“It is the failure of the state to carry out their job from 1954 to 2025 and due to their failure, a community is being punished,” he contended, adding that the law undermined Muslims' constitutional right under Article 26 to administer their own property.
The petitioners also challenged the provision requiring a practising Muslim of at least five years to be eligible to dedicate property as waqf—a criterion not imposed on other religious endowments.

Defending the law, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that permitting “any person” to dedicate waqf, as allowed by the 2013 amendment, was conceptually flawed.

“How can waqf, which is an Islamic concept, be available for non-Islamic persons?” he asked, insisting the 2025 amendments were designed to enhance transparency and curb misuse.

Another point of contention was the prohibition on creating waqf on land belonging to scheduled tribes. Mehta explained that the restriction was meant to protect vulnerable communities and their cultural identity, citing the joint parliamentary committee report that recommended the safeguard.

The bench stated further, “What is the nexus of not allowing waqf on tribal land? Islam is Islam. Cultural traditions may differ, but religion is the same. If a waqf is sought to be created by fraud or deception, that will otherwise also go.”

During the May 22 hearing, senior lawyers including Rajeev Dhavan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Act discriminates against Muslims and threatens to extinguish properties historically recognised as waqf through usage or oral tradition—provisions now restricted.

Dhavan pointed out that charity is among the five fundamental pillars of Islam, while Singhvi warned that the law’s registration and government dispute provisions could create a “vicious circle” blocking recognition of legitimate waqf properties.

States and other intervenors supporting the Centre highlighted instances of alleged misuse, citing cases where large tracts, even entire villages, were claimed as waqf property.

The petitions challenge the Act on multiple constitutional grounds, alleging violations of fundamental rights and erosion of age-old waqf traditions.

The Centre, meanwhile, maintains that the legislation is a necessary reform aimed at ensuring accountability, transparency, and protection against encroachment.