The Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in its entirety but issued a partial freeze on several controversial provisions, reportedly for the need for legal safeguards around matters of religious and property rights.

Chief among the provisions held in abeyance are those granting district collectors the authority to unilaterally determine whether a property claimed as waqf is actually government-owned. Also paused is the requirement that only a person who has practised Islam for at least five years and lawfully owns the property can establish waqf through a formal deed.

Reading out the operative part of the judgment, Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai clarified that the “five-year practising Muslim” condition will not take immediate effect. Its implementation hinges on state governments first laying down specific procedures to determine religious adherence — a condition currently undefined in the statute.

The two-judge bench, which also included Justice A.G. Masih, ruled that while the government may proceed with its plan to digitise waqf properties via a centralised portal, the legal status of such properties cannot be settled administratively. It struck down the provision empowering collectors to alter land revenue records or make final decisions regarding property status, insisting that such matters must be resolved through waqf tribunals or competent High Courts. Until such adjudication is complete, no third-party interests can be created over disputed properties.

What Did the Court Direct the Central Waqf Council? 

In a bid to preserve the representative character of waqf institutions, the Court directed that the Central Waqf Council — a statutory advisory body under the Ministry of Minority Affairs — should include no more than four non-Muslim members. Similarly, it limited non-Muslim membership on state waqf boards to three. Though not mandated by law, the Court also recommended that CEOs of waqf boards be Muslims “as far as possible,” citing the religious nature of waqf administration.

CJI Gavai reiterated that laws passed by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality, but noted that certain provisions warranted immediate judicial scrutiny. “We are not staying the entire Act, but some provisions raise concerns that must be addressed before they can be enforced,” he said.

The ruling follows an earlier hearing on August 22, during which the bench declined to halt a Union government directive requiring all waqf properties to be registered within six months on the UMEED portal (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development). The June 6 directive from the Ministry of Minority Affairs is part of a broader effort to streamline and regulate waqf property management across the country.

At the time, the Court refused to issue an interim stay on the notification, citing the fact that it had already reserved judgment. “How can we pass an interim order when the judgment has been reserved in the issue? Sorry! You comply with whatever is required. We will consider everything in our order,” CJI Gavai told counsel seeking relief.

Monday’s decision marks a significant judicial intervention in the evolving legal framework governing waqf properties, aiming to strike a balance between administrative reform and constitutional safeguards.