New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday delivered an interim verdict on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The judgment runs 128 pages. A division bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih gave limited relief while the larger challenge remains under consideration.

The court said it did not prima facie find many provisions arbitrary. Still, a few clauses were put on hold or clarified for the time being.

What The Court Stayed Or Clarified

1. Waqf creator must be a practicing Muslim: Section 3(r) the recently enacted legislation demands that waqf creator should be a practicing Muslim for at least five years.

“The possibility of any person not belonging to the Muslim community, converting to the Islamic religion only in order to take benefit of the protection of Waqf Act so as to defeat creditors and evade the law under the cloak of a plausible dedication cannot be ruled out,” the court observed.

It directed that this clause cannot be enforced immediately. Rules have to be framed first.

“Since no mechanism or procedure has been provided as of now for ascertaining as to whether a person has been practicing Islam for at least 5 years or not, such a provision cannot be given effect to immediately,” the judgment said.

So, this provision remains stayed till rules come into force.

2. Waqf by user deleted: The court did not stop the deletion of “waqf by user” clause. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, during the arguments, had said the amendment works prospectively. The court said fears of existing waqfs being hit are baseless.

“If the legislature, in 2025, finds that on account of the concept of ‘Waqf by User’, huge government properties have been encroached upon and to stop the said menace, it takes steps for deletion of the said provision, the said amendment, prima facie, cannot be said to be arbitrary,” he had submitted when the apex court was hearing a bunch of petitions, challenging the Act.

The bench, however, made clear that no existing waqf can be touched unless a waqf tribunal or a High Court decides otherwise.

3. Automatic derecognition of waqfs: Section 3C allows government officials to strip waqf status after an enquiry. The court stayed this clause. It said the power cannot lie with revenue officers.

“The question with regard to determination of title of a property being entrusted to a revenue officer would not be in tune with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. The question of determination of the title of a property will have to, in our considered opinion, be resolved by a judicial or quasi judicial authority,” it said.

Only waqf tribunals and High Courts can decide such matters.

4. Removal of waqf status for ASI monuments: Section 3D nullifies waqfs created on properties protected under the Ancient Monuments Acts of 1904 and 1958. The court refused to interfere.

“Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the (1958) Act permits the citizens to continue with their customary religious practices even if such an area is a protected monument. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any case is made out to stay the said provision,” the court ruled.

5. No waqf over tribal land: Section 3E blocks tribal lands from being declared waqf. The court upheld the move.

“(This) cannot be said to have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Such a provision cannot, therefore, be said to be prima facie arbitrary so as to stay the same,” the top court concluded.

6. Inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf bodies: The court noted the Centre’s statement that no more than four non-Muslims will be included in the Central Waqf Council. For State boards, the ceiling is three.

“In order to avoid any ambiguity, we propose to issue a direction that the Central Waqf Council have non-Muslim members exceeding 4 in number and 3 non-Muslim members insofar as board is concerned,” said the court.

7. CEO of state boards: Section 23 allows appointment of a government official as CEO of state waqf boards without requiring the person to be Muslim. The court left it untouched.

It added a suggestion: “As soon as possible an endeavour should be made to appoint a Chief Executive Officer who belongs to Muslim community.”

8. Registration of waqfs: The court did not stop the requirement of registration under Section 36. Registration was already mandatory in earlier laws.

9. Non-Muslims barred from creating waqfs: The court upheld the deletion of Section 104, which earlier permitted non-Muslims to create waqfs.

“The deletion of the provision which permitted the person not professing Islam to give or donate his property for the purpose of waqf cannot be said to be arbitrary in as much as even according to petitioners waqf is specific to Islamic religion,” the bench said.

The court emphasised that non-Muslims can donate property to a trust, which can later create waqf. It added, “Further, it appears that the said amendment has been brought to make it consistent with the definition of waqf under Section 3(r) of the Amended Waqf Act, which provides that waqf can be created only by a person showing or demonstrating that he is practicing Islam for at least five years.”

10. Limitation Act applies: The court also upheld Section 107, which applies the Limitation Act, 1963, to waqf disputes.

“We fail to understand as to how the Limitation Act, 1963, which is otherwise applicable to any other proceedings with regard to any claim or interest pertaining to immovable property, and which is now being made applicable to the claim or interest pertaining to immovable property comprised in a waqf can be said to be arbitrary,” it said.

In nut shell, the court has paused a handful of provisions. Others stand as they are. The larger question of validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 will be examined in full trial.