Waqf Judgment by the Supreme Court of India: Explained in Simple Words

On 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important ruling on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This law introduced major changes to how Waqf properties (religious endowments made by Muslims for charity or religious purposes) are governed in India.

Several petitions had been filed in the Court, challenging this new law as being against the Constitution of India, especially against the rights of equality, freedom of religion, and protection of property. The Court heard long arguments from both sides, petitioners (those opposing the law) and the Union Government (defending the law).

The Court did not completely strike down the Act. However, it gave interim directions (temporary rules) to protect the rights of Waqf institutions and balance the interests of the government.

The present article shall go on to explain the judgment in simple language so that anyone, even without legal training or knowledge, can understand what was decided and why it matters.

What is Waqf?

To understand the case as such, one needs to know the concept and meaning of Waqf.

• A Waqf is a permanent dedication of property (land, building, money, etc.) by a Muslim, for religious, pious, or charitable purposes.
• Once something is declared as Waqf, it cannot be sold or inherited like ordinary property. It becomes community property, managed for the benefit of society.
• For example, land may be given as Waqf for building a mosque, running a madrasa, maintaining a graveyard, or feeding the poor.

In India, Waqfs are managed by State Waqf Boards and supervised by the Central Waqf Council under the Waqf Act, 1995.

Why was the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, passed by the Parliament?

The Government introduced the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, claiming that reforms were urgently required. Four main justifications were given:

1. Misuse of Waqf properties: There were allegations that some people had wrongly claimed government lands as Waqf land.
2. Lack of registration: Many Waqf properties were not properly registered, creating disputes.
3. Inclusivity in management: The law introduced non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils to make them “more broad-based with wider representation”.
4. Clarity on ownership: The law gave power to government officers to decide if a disputed property was government land or a Waqf land.

The Government said these steps were needed to protect public property and stop misuse, while still safeguarding genuine Waqfs.

Why challenge the law? Petitioner’s perspective. 

Muslim organizations, community leaders, and individuals filed petitions contending that the law violated several provisions of the Constitution of India. The main arguments were rooted in fundamental rights:

• Article 14 (Equality before law): The Act, petitioners claimed, unfairly singled out Muslims for restrictions not imposed on other communities.
• Article 15 (Non-discrimination): Requiring proof of religious practice for five years before creating or managing Waqf was discriminatory.
• Articles 25 & 26 (Freedom of religion and management of religious institutions): The presence of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards was seen as interference in the self-management of a religious institution.
• Articles 29 & 30 (Cultural and minority rights): Petitioners argued that minority communities must be free to preserve their institutions without external imposition.
• Article 300A (Right to property): Making registration compulsory and removing recognition from unregistered Waqfs threatened the property rights of religious institutions.

In short, the petitioners viewed the amendment as excessive State intrusion into religious affairs, contrary to the secular and plural ethos of the Constitution.

The petitioners urged before the Court that:

1. The new / amended law allowed the Government to interfere too much in religious endowments.
2. It removed the concept of “Waqf by user” (where land becomes Waqf by long community use, such as a graveyard etc.)
3. It made registration compulsory, and unregistered Waqfs would lose protection.
4. It introduced tests like proving five years of practicing Islam to create or manage Waqf, which no other religion faces.
5. It added non-Muslim members to Waqf Boards, which was seen as an interference in religious self-management.

Key Provisions in the amended law:

The Court examined several provisions of the amended law:

1. Section 3(r) - Removed “Waqf by user” (where land used for religious purposes automatically becomes Waqf).
2. Section 3C - Said that any government land wrongly declared as Waqf would not be considered Waqf; gave power to officers to decide disputes.
3. Section 36 - Made registration of all Waqfs mandatory; otherwise, they lose legal protection.
4. Section 9 & 14 - Changed the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards to include non-Muslims.
5. Section 107 & 108 - Applied the Limitation Act (time bar for cases) and removed the overriding power of the Waqf Act over other laws.

What did the Court rule?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not strike down the whole law but gave temporary safeguards while the larger issues are to be determined/decided, in detail, later.

The main directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

1. Five-year practice of Islam requirement is suspended

• In terms of the amended law, proof that a person had practiced Islam for at least 5 years before creating or managing a Waqf was made a mandatory prerequisite for the creation of a Waqf.
• The Court suspended this rule until proper guidelines are made.  

1. The powers of government officers are restricted

• Section 3C allowed officers to decide if a property is government land or Waqf.
• The Court said only Waqf Tribunals and High Courts can finally decide such disputes and not the Government officers.

1. Protection from dispossession

• Waqfs cannot be dispossessed of their property until the Tribunal and High Court decide the matter.
• This would prevent sudden eviction.

1. Limit on non-Muslim members

• The law allowed more non-Muslim members in the Waqf Boards and the Central Council.
• The Court ruled:
  • Central Waqf Council can have only up to 4 non-Muslims out of 22 members.
  • State Waqf Boards can have only up to 3 non-Muslims out of 11 members.

1. Chief Executive Officer (CEO), preferably a Muslim

• While the law allowed any officer, the Court directed that, as far as possible, the CEO of a Waqf Board should be from the Muslim community.

1. Other parts of the Act were not stayed

• The Court refused to completely stop the law.
• It said Parliament has the power to make such laws, but their validity will be reviewed in detail in the final hearing of the petition(s).

The Court’s Reasoning

In arriving at its decision, the Court highlighted several principles:

• Presumption of constitutionality: Laws passed by Parliament are presumed valid.
• Charity must be from one’s own property: Government land cannot be declared Waqf simply through long-term community use.
• Preventing misuse of “Waqf by user”: The Court noted that this doctrine had been misapplied to encroach upon public land.
• Balancing religious freedom with public interest: The Court underlined that freedom of religion is protected, but must coexist with the duty to safeguard public resources.

Broader Implications:

The ruling has wide-ranging consequences:

• For the Government: While it retains regulatory powers, its authority is now subject to judicial oversight. Officers cannot unilaterally declare property to be government land.
• For land disputes: Future conflicts will be decided by judicial bodies rather than executive officials, reducing the scope for arbitrary decisions.
• For Waqf institutions: They gain temporary protection from eviction, ensuring that community resources are not arbitrarily taken away. At the same time, greater accountability is now embedded in the system.

Importantly, this is only an interim stage. The petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act remain pending, and the Court will eventually give a final verdict after detailed hearings. The final outcome of this litigation will likely shape the future of religious endowments in India for the time to come. For now, the Apex Court’s approach reassures both the community and the State that neither side will have unchecked power.