The protests against the Waqf Act in Imphal are but one of several being held across the country, with placards and slogans being raised to denounce the act, demanding it be rescinded
x
Apart from the issue of denotification, petitioners have raised questions over the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members | File photo

Supreme Court stays key provisions in Waqf Amendment Act

Bench led by CJI BR Gavai rules on challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, regarding property denotification and board composition


Click the Play button to hear this message in audio format

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 15) refused to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, saying there was a “presumption” of constitutionality in its favour, but stalled certain provisions, including the one which said only those who practise Islam for at least the past five years can create a waqf.

Pronouncing an interim order, a bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “We have considered prima facie challenge to each of the sections and found no case was made out to stay the entire statute.”

The top court, however, stayed the provision which said that only persons practising Islam for the last five years can create a waqf. It also stayed the provision which enabled an official designated by the government to determine the dispute whether the Waqf property has encroached on a government property.

“We have held presumption is always on constitutionality of statute and in rarest it can be done. We have found that the entire Act is challenged, but the basic challenge was sections 3(r), 3C, 14...,” the CJI said.

It directed that as far as possible, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board should be a Muslim, while refusing to stay the amendment allowing the appointment of a non-Muslim as a CEO.

It also said the number of non-Muslims in state waqf boards and central waqf councils cannot exceed three.

The detailed judgement is awaited.

Also read:

Waqf law push may be final nail in coffin for Nitish’s falling Muslim votes

'Waqf by user': What does it mean? Why SC raised concerns over it?

Why the Christians of Munambam feel let down by Centre’s Waqf law

Follow Live updates below:

Live Updates

  • 15 Sept 2025 2:56 PM IST

    SC's interim order has made it clear that the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 is a valid law: Jagdambika Pal

    On SC's order in the Waqf Amendment Act, Jagdambika Pal, Chairman of the JPC of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and BJP MP, says, "Today, the Supreme Court has given its approval to the amendment act which was passed by the legislature after 14 hours of discussions in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and after discussions for six months in the Joint Parliamentary Committee. It is clear that the law that has been passed is a valid law. A stay has been imposed on some of its provisions; the government will definitely consider that, and it will take action on that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court. As far as the practice of Islam for five years is considered, the Supreme Court has said that, for the time being, we are putting a stay on it, until the state frames a rule on it..."

  • 15 Sept 2025 2:54 PM IST

    Key highlights of SC order on pleas challenging validity of 2025 Waqf law

    Here are the key takeaways of the Supreme Court's order which on Monday stayed several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but refused to stay the entire law.

    • Chief Justice of India B R Gavai-led bench refused to stay the operation of the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
    • SC says it did not find any case to stay provisions of the entire statute.
    • Provision in Section 3(1)(r) requiring only a person practising Islam for at least five years can create a waqf is put on hold.
    • SC said the stay will remain until rules are framed by the state government to determine how such practice will be verified.
    • SC partly stayed waqf property inquiry provisions which meant a property cannot be treated as non-waqf solely on the designated officer’s report.
    • SC said revenue records and board records will not be altered based only on such reports.
    • SC said waqfs will not be dispossessed of their properties nor will entries in official records be changed until the title dispute is finally decided by the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83, subject to high court appeals.
    • SC said, however, during such proceedings, no third-party rights can be created in respect of those properties.
    • SC capped non-Muslims’ representation in state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council. It said in Central Waqf Council’s 22 members, a maximum of four can be non-Muslim members. It said in 11-members state waqf boards, a maximum of three non-Muslim can be members.
    • SC dealt with the issue of CEO of Waqf Board and did not stay Section 23 which deals with the appointment of CEO as ex-officio Secretary. It, however, said as far as possible, the CEO should be appointed from the Muslim community.
    • SC said these directions are interim in nature and will not affect arguments or decisions on the constitutional validity of the amended provisions at the final stage. 

  • 15 Sept 2025 2:51 PM IST

    SC must uphold Constitutional rights in Waqf Act case: Harish Rawat

    On SC's order in the Waqf Amendment Act, former Uttarakhand CM and senior Congress leader Harish Rawat says, "...The Supreme Court is aware of the history of Waqf and the issue of religious freedom, as well as the emotions people have attached to it. It also knows the aim of the government and the politics behind this. We hope that if the government cannot provide justice regarding this issue, the Supreme Court will... The decision should be in favour of the law, the Constitution and the country...If the rights which the Constitution gives to every religion are not being complied with, then it is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to ensure compliance."

  • 15 Sept 2025 2:48 PM IST

    Waqf Amendment Act based on 'wrong and unjust' intentions: SP MP Rajeev Rai

    On SC's order in the Waqf Amendment Act, Samajwadi Party MP Rajeev Rai says, "...It is an interim decision...According to the Supreme Court, this law was brought for a specific intention, which was wrong and unjust. If the verdict comes late, too much damage may have already been done...Everyone should trust the court that the final verdict will provide justice to everyone."

  • 15 Sept 2025 2:46 PM IST

    Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has SC’s stamp of approval: Rajasthan Minister Jogaram Patel

    On SC's order in the Waqf Amendment Act, Rajasthan Minister Jogaram Patel says, "The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 passed by the government has a stamp of the Supreme Court on it in a way. The Supreme Court has stated that certain provisions of the Waqf Act will remain stayed until the rules are formulated after the Waqf Act is enacted, but overall, after reviewing the Waqf Act, the Supreme Court has held that it is correct, due, and in the public interest. The government will follow the directions given by them as per its interest."

  • 15 Sept 2025 12:56 PM IST

    Not right to comment immediately: Congress MP Tariq Anwar

  • 15 Sept 2025 12:54 PM IST

    Whatever SC has decided is very good sign for our democracy: Rijiju

  • 15 Sept 2025 12:51 PM IST

    Law was for protection of faith, reform of order: BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi

  • 15 Sept 2025 11:42 AM IST

    SC stay on Waqf Act clauses 'disappointing but interim': Advocate Reena N Singh

    On SC's order in the Waqf Amendment Act, Advocate Reena N Singh says, "There are 3-4 provisions which are being stayed by the Supreme Court. Though they are extremely important, and it is a bit of disappointment, but these are not the final orders. The stay is on that the government cannot create any third-party interest until or unless the title is cleared on the Waqf property. Earlier, the Collector had the right to take the alleged Waqf property into its possession. Now the apex court has put a stay on it. Another important point is that the 5-year clause has been stayed..."

Next Story