The Supreme Court in India on Monday (September 15, 2025) refused to remain the entire WAQF Act (amendment), 2025, knowing that the assumption is always for the constitutionality of the law approved by the legislature.
“It is only in the most precious rare cases, the court can grant the law attacked by the law. We have found that the case was not listed to remain the whole status,” said the bench of the main judge of India Bravai and Augustine George Masih.
The Supreme Court partly remains by law 2025 | LIVE
However, there were some changes in the provisions of the WAQF Act. These include sections 3, 9, 14, 23, 36, 104, 107 and 108 after Prima Facia with regard to the question of their legality and the history of legislation dating back to 1923.
The court explained that its rejection to remain the entire status and observations made in the judgment would interfere with the part of the parties to further represent a comprehensive call against the entire Act on Amendment of 2025 and all its provisions.
Meanwhile, the court remained Section 3, who demanded a person who intends to create a WAQF to prove that he has practiced Islam for at least five years.
The court stated that until the center is proposed “mechanism” or “rules” to prove that a person is a Muslim for five years, the change would remain.
“He believes that without a mechanism, such a provision would lead to any power of power,” Gavai, Chief Judge Gavai, stressed.
The Court of Justice also stiffened the reservation in point 2 of the 3c, which ordered the WAQF’s disputed assets and subject to the investigation of the designated government official, to lose its status and the nature of the WAQF asset until the official submitted the report.
The petitioners submitted Section 3C allowed free backrests to any Encroacher to start a WAQF dispute and freeze its status as WAQF.
The Court of Justice stated that the authorization of a government official, such as a district collector, will determine the rights of WAQF or citizens who are stakeholders in the WAQF, would be stolen by the doctrine of the department of powers.
“The executive cannot be allowed to determine the rights of citizens in the proceedings,” said Chief Judge Gavai during the statement.
The court stressed that there would be no change in the position or position of the WAQF assets on the basis of an investigation until the findings of the specified officers have achieved finality.
The judgment stated that until the issue of the WAQF title was not determined by a competent tribunal and is subject to further Supreme Court proceedings, WAQF would not be deprived of the assets or there would be no change in income or court records. Meanwhile, no third -party rights would be created.
The Court of Justice has ruled that Muslims will mostly members of the key WAQF bodies, such as Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards across states. According to Section 9, the WAQF Middle Council would not have more than four non -Muslim members of a total of 20 Muslim members.
“Likewise, in the WAQF advice, according to Section 14, the number of non -Muslims would not be more than three.
Editorial | Country Law: For Judicial Change and Waqf
The petitioners raised an alarm about the “subordination” of Muslim members in the WAQF administrative bodies by incorporating Muslims. The leaders of the chapels of Sibal and AM Singhvi claimed that no other religious foundations, Hindu or Sikh, have allowed the room to members of other religions to control their temples or gurudware.
However, the judgment of the Court of Justice faced the arguments of the petitioners against the compulsory registration of the WAQFS authorities. Chief Justice Gavai noted that the registration was mandatory since 1995 and continued until 2013, then abandoned. In addition, unregistered waqfs could still go and register.
The petitioners described the mandatory requirement to register WAQFS as a “creeping acquisition” of Muslim qualities by the government. They also argued that the law on amendment of 2025 would effectively invalidate unregistered WAQF users. Many of the old waqfs had no documents or deeds to support their identity.
They argued that the law included “any WAQF property restrictions and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community”. They argued that the WAQF law was undermined by the ownership rights protected under Article 300a of the Constitution and interfered with the right of the minority community to the freedom of religion (Article 25).
On the other hand, the Center, represented by the General Council of Tushar Mehta, prevented the registration as a necessary computer from a “uncontrollable intervention” in public and private real estate.
Mr Mehta said that WAQFS has only received legal recognition of previous WAQF laws. “What was created by legislative policy could be taken by legislation with regard to the social situation,” he said.
The Government of the Union prevented the constitutionality of WAQF changes and noted that the practice of charity by creating WAQFS was not an essential part of Islam.
The government faced the petitioners and stated that articles 25 and 26 (the right of minorities to manage its religious affairs) allowed the state regulation of secular activities related to religion, including financial proceedings and religious foundation property to ensure transparency.
Published – 15 September 2025 12:41 is
