Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025: Constitutional Challenges and the Supreme Court’s Interim Intervention

Author

Ishika Garg is a 4th-year B.Com LL.B. student at Maharishi Markandeshwar Deemed to be University, Mullana, Ambala.

Introduction

Few recent legislative changes have sparked as much constitutional debate as the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.¹ The Act introduced significant changes to the legal framework governing waqf properties, which are religious, charitable or other recognised endowments under Islamic law. Soon after its enactment, the legislation was challenged before the Supreme Court by several petitioners, including Members of Parliament.²

What makes this litigation particularly significant is the Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim relief on certain provisions before delivering a final judgment on the Act’s constitutional validity. By temporarily restricting the operation of some contested provisions, the Court has attempted to balance the implementation of the amended law with the constitutional concerns raised by the petitioners.

This blog examines the changes introduced by the Amendment Act, the Supreme Court’s interim intervention, and the competing constitutional arguments surrounding the legislation.

The Statutory Framework

Waqf refers to the permanent dedication of property for purposes recognised as religious, pious or charitable under Islamic law. In India, waqf properties have traditionally been governed by the Waqf Act 1995, which established State Waqf Boards, the Central Waqf Council and specialized Waqf Tribunals to oversee administration and resolve disputes concerning such properties.³

The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 was passed by both Houses of Parliament in early April 2025 and received Presidential assent on 5 April 2025.⁴ It introduced several changes to the existing framework, including digitization of waqf records, financial audits and time-bound adjudication of disputes.

However, some of its most debated provisions concern the composition and powers of waqf institutions. The amendments provide for non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. They also introduced a requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for at least five years before creating a waqf.⁵

Another significant change concerns the authority of the Collector. Under the amended framework, a designated Collector may examine whether property claimed as waqf is actually government land. The concern raised by petitioners is that this process could affect the property’s waqf status while the inquiry is still underway.⁶

The legislation was challenged by several petitioners, including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress MP Mohammad Jawed. Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan, presented arguments questioning the constitutionality of the amendments. Particular concern was expressed over the Collector’s role and the possibility of executive authorities affecting the status of properties claimed as waqf.⁷

Judicial Intervention

The Supreme Court’s response to the challenges has developed through several stages. In April 2025, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna heard arguments concerning the amended legislation. On 17 April 2025, the Court directed the Union government to maintain the status quo on certain contentious provisions while further proceedings continued.⁸

The Court also recorded the government’s assurance that no non-Muslim members would be appointed to Waqf Boards or the Central Waqf Council until further orders. It further protected properties already recognised as waqf from being de-notified during this period. This protection included properties recognised under the doctrine of “waqf by user”, which concerns properties treated as waqf because of their longstanding religious use, even without a formal dedication deed.⁹

The Court subsequently declined to entertain fresh petitions raising overlapping challenges and directed the petitioners to seek impleadment in the consolidated proceedings.¹⁰

A reconstituted bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, along with Justice Augustine George Masih, later heard arguments concerning the disputed provisions. The hearings focused on issues such as the de-notification of waqf properties, the composition of statutory bodies and the treatment of waqf-by-user properties.¹¹

In its interim ruling, the Court expressed concern over the Collector’s authority to determine whether a property was government land while an inquiry was pending. Such decisions could affect existing property rights, raising questions about whether an executive officer should exercise powers with significant adjudicatory consequences. The Court’s reasoning was linked to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.¹²

The Court also stayed the five-year religious practice requirement for creating a waqf until State Governments established rules providing a mechanism to determine whether the requirement had been met. However, it declined to suspend the entire Amendment Act. The final constitutional questions remain open for determination.¹³

Critical Analysis

The constitutional debate surrounding the Waqf Amendment Act can be understood through three major issues: religious autonomy, executive authority over property rights, and the future of Waqf-by-user properties.

Religious Autonomy and Articles 25 and 26

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs, subject to constitutional limitations.

Petitioners argue that including non-Muslim members in institutions responsible for administering Islamic religious endowments interferes with the Muslim community’s ability to manage its religious institutions. Their argument raises a broader question about how far the State can regulate institutions established for religious and charitable purposes.

The government’s position rests on a distinction between religious affairs and administrative functions. Waqf Boards perform responsibilities involving property management, financial administration, audits and compliance with statutory requirements. From this perspective, the government maintains that including members from different communities in statutory administrative bodies does not necessarily interfere with religious freedom.¹⁴

The constitutional difficulty lies in determining where religious management ends and secular administration begins. While the State may regulate certain secular activities associated with religious institutions, the extent of that authority remains a matter of constitutional interpretation.

The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will therefore have implications beyond Waqf administration. It may also contribute to the wider understanding of how Articles 25 and 26 apply when religious institutions are governed through statutory bodies.

Executive Power and Property Rights

The Collector’s authority to examine the status of disputed properties raises a separate constitutional concern.

Property disputes can involve complicated questions of ownership, historical possession and legal recognition. Where an executive officer’s determination affects existing rights, questions arise about the adequacy of procedural safeguards and the availability of independent judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s interim intervention reflects these concerns. Its reasoning suggests that decisions affecting civil rights cannot be considered merely routine administrative matters when they have significant consequences for property status.

However, the interim order should not be mistaken for a final determination that the entire amended framework is unconstitutional. It represents an intervention concerning specific provisions while the broader challenge remains pending.

Waqf by User and Historical Endowments

The treatment of Waqf-by-user properties is another important aspect of the litigation.

Historically, the doctrine allowed certain properties to be recognised as waqf on the basis of longstanding religious use, even where formal documentary evidence of dedication was unavailable.

Petitioners argue that restricting this doctrine could disproportionately affect older religious endowments. Such properties may have existed for generations without documentation in the form now required by modern administrative systems. Removing their recognition could therefore create difficulties for communities seeking to establish their legal status.

The government’s position is that stronger documentation requirements can help prevent fraudulent claims and protect government and private land from being wrongly classified as waqf.¹⁵

Both concerns raise legitimate questions about the relationship between historical practice and modern property regulation. While reliable records are important for preventing disputes, documentation requirements may also create difficulties where historical records were never maintained.

The Supreme Court’s interim protection of existing Waqf-by-user properties offers temporary security while the constitutional challenge proceeds. It does not, however, settle whether the legislative changes concerning this doctrine are constitutionally valid.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 has brought important questions about religious autonomy, property rights and the limits of executive authority before the Supreme Court.

Through its interim orders, the Court has restricted certain contested provisions while allowing the broader legislation to remain in operation. This approach has provided temporary protection in specific areas without determining the constitutional validity of the Act as a whole.

The final judgment will have consequences for Waqf administration across India and may clarify the constitutional limits of State regulation of religious endowments. Until then, the litigation remains an important example of the role of judicial review in examining legislation that affects both property rights and constitutionally protected religious freedoms.

Footnotes

1. Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act 14 of 2025).
2. ‘SC to Deliver Verdict Today on Plea Challenging Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025’ IANS (15 September 2025).
3. Waqf Act 1995, ss 9, 13 and 83.
4. ‘Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 Comes into Force Amid Constitutional Challenges in Supreme Court’ (Desi Kaanoon, 8 April 2025).
5. Ibid.
6. ‘Can’t Stay Entire Amendment: Supreme Court Stays Some Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025’ (Verdictum, 2025).
7. ‘SC to Deliver Verdict Today on Plea Challenging Waqf (Amendment Act 2025’ (Verdictum, 2025).
8. In re: Waqf Amendment Act (Supreme Court of India, Order dated 17 April 2025).
9. ‘Waqf Amendment Act 2025: SC Grants Some Time to Centre on Condition No Non-Muslims Appointed to Board, Council & No Change in Any Waqf Status’ (Sabrang India, 2025).
10. ‘SC Refuses to Entertain Fresh Pleas Challenging Waqf Amendment Act’ (SCC Online Blog, 29 April 2025).
11. ‘Supreme Court Reserves Orders on Challenges to Waqf Amendment Act 2025’ Business Standard (New Delhi, 2025).
12. ‘Can’t Stay Entire Amendment: Supreme Court Stays Some Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025’ (n 6).
13. Ibid.
14. ‘SC to Deliver Verdict Today on Plea Challenging Waqf (Amendment Act 2025’ (Verdictum, 2025).
15. ‘Can’t Stay Entire Amendment: Supreme Court Stays Some Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025’ (Verdictum, 2025).