Waqf law will remain intact, but Supreme Court has put a stay on some provisions, know 5 big things of the decision

Supreme Court Upholds Waqf Act but Blocks Key Provisions: Here Are the 5 Major Takeaways

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant verdict on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, upholding the overall validity of the law while striking down certain provisions and setting strict conditions for its implementation. The ruling provides a balanced approach, retaining the framework of the Act but restricting some clauses that were seen as potentially unconstitutional. Here is a detailed look at the judgment and its key implications.

Act Remains Valid, But Restrictions Imposed

A batch of petitions had challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, arguing that some of its provisions violated fundamental rights. After hearing the matter for three days, a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai reserved its order on May 22 and delivered the verdict now. The Supreme Court refused to strike down the entire Act, reiterating that the constitutionality of a law is always presumed unless it is clearly unconstitutional. The bench maintained that courts interfere only in the “rarest of rare” cases.

Two Major Clauses Put on Hold

While the Act survives, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of two critical provisions. First, it blocked the clause that required a five-year mandatory period for certain administrative actions. Second, it suspended the provision related to revenue records that could potentially allow unilateral decisions about Waqf properties. The court also clarified that a Collector cannot be empowered to determine the rights of private citizens, stating that such powers would violate the principle of separation of powers.

Conditions for Waqf Boards

The judgment introduced new structural safeguards for Waqf Boards. The court ruled that no more than three non-Muslim members can serve on a Waqf Board, and the Chief Executive Officer must be a Muslim. These directions aim to preserve the religious character of the boards while ensuring fair representation and administrative balance.

Collector’s Authority Restricted

The bench also barred Collectors from making decisions that affect third-party rights until a Waqf Tribunal issues a ruling. This prevents any administrative overreach that might compromise the property rights of individuals or communities. The court emphasized that any action against private parties must follow due judicial process rather than executive discretion.

Why the Law Was Challenged

Petitioners had raised three key concerns:

The composition of State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.

The inclusion of non-Muslim members in decision-making roles.

Provisions giving excessive authority to administrative officials such as Collectors.
They argued that these measures undermined the autonomy of Waqf institutions and violated constitutional protections for religious freedom.

Government’s Position and Next Steps

The central government had introduced the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 and notified it after receiving presidential assent. It also launched the UMEED portal, requiring details of Waqf properties to be submitted for transparency. With the Supreme Court’s verdict, the Act remains in force, but the government must now comply with the restrictions and ensure that the stayed provisions are not enforced until further judicial review.

Key Takeaway

The ruling preserves the core structure of the Waqf Act while ensuring constitutional safeguards. By upholding the law but striking down contentious provisions, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: religious property management must respect both faith-based practices and constitutional principles. The government will now need to amend or clarify the blocked provisions before fully implementing the Act.

This decision marks a critical balance between religious autonomy, individual rights, and state oversight, shaping how Waqf properties will be governed in the years ahead.