The Supreme Court delivered its interim decision on September 15th concerning the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act. The court decided against imposing a stay on the entire law, but issued an interim stay on three specific sections. The two-member bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, determined that while repealing the entire law wasn’t necessary, some parts of the new law needed legal protection. The court had reserved its judgment after extensive hearings on May 22nd.
Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, reacted to the court’s decision by welcoming it and expressing appreciation. He highlighted that the court had taken into account the worries and serious concerns raised by Muslims nationwide about some parts of the new law, leading to the interim stay on those specific sections.
Maulana Madani stated that the legal battle continues. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind will pursue its legal and democratic efforts until the law is repealed. He argued that the new Waqf law violates the Indian constitution, which provides equal rights to citizens, minorities, and ensures complete religious freedom.
He added that the law represents a dangerous, unconstitutional scheme to deprive Muslims of their religious freedom. Consequently, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has challenged the Waqf Act 2025 in the Supreme Court. He expressed his confidence that the Supreme Court will deliver constitutional justice by repealing this law.
Maulana Madani also thanked his legal counsel, including Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, and credited their strong arguments for persuading the court that the changes in the Waqf law are harmful to Waqf properties, unconstitutional, and significantly undermine the religious freedom of Muslims.
The court put specific provisions on hold. The new law stated that only those who have practiced Islam for the last five years could establish a Waqf. The court stayed this provision, saying it would not be enforced until state governments establish a process.
The new law gave all power to the District Collector, making him the final arbiter of the status of a disputed Waqf property. The court also stayed this, stating that there would be no interference with disputed Waqf property until a tribunal or court decision. The court further stated that no party could transfer rights to a third party until the dispute was resolved. The court clarified that the Commissioner could not determine the ownership of any property.
The court also clarified that the Central Waqf Council would have no more than four non-Muslim members, and State Waqf Boards would have no more than three non-Muslim members. Although the court did not block the appointment of non-Muslim CEOs to State Waqf Boards, it emphasized that Muslim CEOs should be appointed wherever possible. The court did not interfere with registration requirements, recognizing that Waqf properties have always been registered.
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai read the judgment, noting that the court can only stay or repeal a law under special circumstances. He noted that while the entire law was challenged, certain sections were particularly important.
The central government confirmed that no Waqf property, including those by-use, declared by notification or registration, would be de-notified or have its status changed.