# Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025: the Supreme Court challenge **TL;DR:** The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (also called the UMEED Act), received presidential assent on 5 April 2025 and made sweeping changes to the Waqf Act, 1995 -- eliminating "waqf by user," introducing non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards, empowering Collectors to adjudicate property disputes, and opening Waqf Tribunal orders to High Court appeal. Over 65 petitions challenged the Act's constitutional validity before the Supreme Court; on 15 September 2025, a bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih declined to stay the Act in its entirety but suspended several specific provisions and imposed conditions on board composition, pending final adjudication on the merits. --- ## On this page - [What is a waqf and why does it matter](#what-is-a-waqf-and-why-does-it-matter) - [Legislative history from 1923 to 2025](#legislative-history-from-1923-to-2025) - [What the 2025 Act actually changes](#what-the-2025-act-actually-changes) - [The Supreme Court proceedings](#the-supreme-court-proceedings) - [The 15 September 2025 interim judgment](#the-15-september-2025-interim-judgment) - [Constitutional arguments in depth](#constitutional-arguments-in-depth) - [Practical impact on mutawallis, boards, and litigants](#practical-impact-on-mutawallis-boards-and-litigants) - [Provisions stayed versus provisions upheld](#provisions-stayed-versus-provisions-upheld) - [How Niyam helps](#how-niyam-helps) - [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions) - [Key takeaways](#key-takeaways) --- ## What is a waqf and why does it matter A **waqf** (also spelled wakf) is a permanent dedication of property -- movable or immovable -- by a Muslim person for a purpose recognised under Muslim personal law as pious, religious, or charitable. Once dedicated, the property is considered to belong to God; it can never be sold, inherited, or mortgaged. The person who creates a waqf is called the **waqif**, and the person appointed to manage the property is the **mutawalli**. Waqf properties in India are substantial. State Waqf Boards collectively administer one of the largest portfolios of non-agricultural land in the country -- mosques, dargahs, graveyards, orphanages, schools, and income-generating commercial property. The revenues from these properties are meant to fund religious and charitable purposes. A waqf can be created in two broad ways: 1. **Express dedication:** The waqif executes a deed, oral declaration, or written instrument explicitly declaring the property as waqf. 2. **Waqf by user:** No formal deed exists, but the property has been used for a religious or charitable purpose for so long, and so publicly, that the community recognises it as waqf. Ancient mosques built before written records were common, and graveyards with no surviving documentation, typically fell into this category. The distinction between these two modes is at the heart of the 2025 legislative controversy. --- ## Legislative history from 1923 to 2025 India's waqf legislation has evolved through several statutes over a century: **Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923:** The earliest central legislation introduced basic rules requiring accountability and proper accounting for waqf management. However, it did not create supervisory boards or dispute resolution tribunals. **Waqf Act, 1954:** Established State Waqf Boards (SWBs) to supervise, control, and administer waqfs in each state. The Act brought waqf property under a statutory framework for the first time and required registration of waqfs with the Board. **Waqf Act, 1995:** Replaced the 1954 Act. Key features included: a definition of waqf that explicitly included "waqf by user"; the creation of Waqf Tribunals under Section 83 as exclusive forums for waqf property disputes; the Central Waqf Council as an advisory body; and Section 40, which gave the Board suo-motu power to declare any property as waqf and treated that declaration as final unless set aside by the Tribunal. **Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013:** Expanded the definition of waqf, widened the scope of "waqf by user," and strengthened Board powers, including removing the requirement that the waqif must have been a practising Muslim for five years. The 2013 amendments were controversial from the outset. Critics argued they encouraged unilateral Board action to declare private and government land as waqf without adequate procedural safeguards. The central government cited instances -- most prominently in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu -- where revenue records of government or private land were altered based solely on Board declarations. --- ## What the 2025 Act actually changes The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act No. 14 of 2025) received presidential assent on **5 April 2025** and came into force on **8 April 2025**. Parliament passed it with 288 votes for and 232 against in the Lok Sabha on 3 April 2025, and 128 votes for and 95 against in the Rajya Sabha on 4 April 2025. The companion **Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Act, 2025** (Act No. 15 of 2025) simultaneously repealed the colonial-era Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, consolidating all waqf governance under a single amended 1995 Act. The 2025 Act amends over 40 provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, and renames the parent statute the "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995" -- commonly referred to as the **UMEED Act**. The principal changes are as follows: **1. Abolition of waqf by user (Section 3(r))** The amended Section 3(r) removes the words "waqf by user" from the definition of waqf. Under the amended Act, a waqf must be created by a written deed or formal declaration. Properties that were previously registered as waqf by user before the Act's commencement retain their status unless they are the subject of a pending dispute with the government. Unregistered waqf-by-user properties that were not formally documented lose the benefit of the statutory definition. **2. Five-year practising Muslim requirement (Section 3(r))** Also under Section 3(r), the 2025 Act re-introduces the requirement that a person must have professed Islam for at least five years before creating a waqf. This requirement had been part of the pre-2013 law and was removed by the 2013 amendment. The government's stated rationale is that waqf is a religious act that presupposes a settled religious identity. Petitioners argue the requirement is arbitrary, penalises recent converts, and amounts to state surveillance of private religious belief. **3. Non-Muslim members on Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards (Sections 9 and 14)** The amended Act requires the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards to include representation from non-Muslim communities, specifically non-Muslim professionals with expertise in administration or law. The Act also mandates inclusion of at least two Muslim women on each body. This change, the government says, brings waqf administration within a broader diversity framework and improves management quality. Critics argue it fundamentally compromises the denominational character of these bodies. **4. Collector's authority over property classification (Section 3C)** This is perhaps the most contested change. Under the amended Section 3C, when there is a question of whether a particular property is waqf property or government land, the matter is referred to a designated government officer above the rank of Collector, appointed by the State Government. That officer inquires into the question and submits a report. Until the officer's report is finalised and the issue is determined through the Tribunal process under Section 83, the property's waqf status is suspended and no revenue records may be changed. The government's argument is that this prevents the Board from unilaterally appropriating government property. Petitioners contend that placing a quasi-judicial function -- determining ownership of property -- in the hands of a revenue official who reports to the state executive is incompatible with the separation of powers and creates structural bias against waqf claimants. **5. Removal of Section 40** Section 40 of the pre-2025 Act gave the Waqf Board the power, on its own motion, to enquire into the validity of waqf property and declare a property as waqf. Its deletion means the Board can no longer initiate suo-motu proceedings to identify new waqf properties. Any claim that a property is waqf must now originate from the waqif, the mutawalli, or the affected community through formal registration or Tribunal proceedings. **6. Registration and digitisation (Section 36)** All waqf properties must be registered with a central digital portal within a specified period. Registration requires submission of the original waqf deed or other documentary evidence. The government frames this as a transparency measure. Petitioners point out that many waqfs are centuries old and no documentary evidence survives; mandatory documentation effectively extinguishes those waqfs. **7. High Court appeals from Waqf Tribunal (Section 83)** Under the 1995 Act, the Waqf Tribunal's decisions were final -- a deliberate design choice to reduce protracted litigation. The 2025 Act introduces a 90-day appeal window to the relevant High Court. Supporters say this is a natural extension of judicial review and corrects an anomaly by which Tribunal orders were otherwise challengeable only by way of writ petitions. Critics argue it reintroduces exactly the kind of prolonged litigation the Tribunal system was meant to avoid, and that it creates inequality vis-a-vis other religious endowment boards whose decisions are not similarly appealable. **8. Scheduled tribe land (Section 3E) and ASI monuments (Section 3D)** The Act excludes from waqf status any property forming part of Scheduled Tribe land under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, and any property notified as a protected monument under the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Waqf claimants on such properties lose their statutory protection, though customary religious practices at monument sites are explicitly preserved. --- ## The Supreme Court proceedings The constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was challenged almost immediately after presidential assent. Over **65 petitions** were filed before the Supreme Court by a range of petitioners including: - AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi (Member of Parliament) - All India Muslim Personal Law Board - Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind - Arshad Madani (Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind) - Mohammad Jawed (Congress MP) - Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) - Various state-level Muslim organisations and individual advocates On **17 April 2025**, the Court clubbed all petitions under the consolidated case title **"In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025"** and designated five petitions as lead cases: 1. Arshad Madani v. Union of India 2. Muhammad Jameel Merchant v. Union of India 3. Mohammed Fazlurrahim and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 4. Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. The Union of India and Ors. 5. Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India The proceedings were initially heard by a three-judge bench of **Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna**, **Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar**, and **Justice K.V. Viswanathan**. Following Chief Justice Khanna's retirement, the matter was transferred on **5 May 2025** to a bench presided over by **Chief Justice B.R. Gavai**, sitting with **Justice Augustine George Masih**. The respondent side comprised not only the Union of India but also several BJP-ruled states that supported the amendments. Notably, **Kerala** and certain other states opposed the amendments, and the **Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust** (a Hindu religious organisation) also filed submissions opposing the Act. The Union filed a counter-affidavit arguing that the amendments were regulatory and administrative in nature, aimed at curbing misuse of waqf provisions to encroach on private and government land, and that they did not interfere with the religious character of waqf as such. --- ## The 15 September 2025 interim judgment After extended oral arguments before the Gavai bench, the Court on **15 September 2025** pronounced its interim judgment on the petitioners' prayer for a stay of the Act. The bench declined to stay the Act in its entirety, holding that no case for a blanket stay had been made out. However, it suspended specific provisions and imposed binding conditions on others. ### Provisions suspended by the interim order **Section 3(r) -- five-year practice requirement:** The Court observed that there was no mechanism in the Act or accompanying rules by which the state government could verify whether a person had practised Islam for five years. Until such a mechanism was framed by rules, this requirement was stayed. **Section 3C proviso -- Collector's determination of property status:** The Court held, as a prima facie matter, that entrusting the determination of title in a property -- a quasi-judicial function -- to a revenue officer was inconsistent with the separation of powers. The proviso allowing a designated officer above Collector rank to determine whether a property is government land was suspended. **Sections 3C(3) and 3C(4) -- revenue record corrections:** Related provisions that permitted changes to revenue records and Waqf Board records based solely on a government officer's administrative determination were also suspended as arbitrary. ### Conditions imposed rather than stay granted **Board composition:** The Court directed that the Central Waqf Council shall not have more than **four non-Muslim members** out of a total of 22, and State Waqf Boards shall not have more than **three non-Muslim members** out of a total of 11. The Court also directed that the Boards should endeavour to ensure that the ex-officio chairperson comes from the Muslim community. **CEO appointment:** The Court directed that as far as possible, the Chief Executive Officer of State Waqf Boards should be appointed from the Muslim community. **Protection of waqf property pending litigation:** The Court directed that until final determination by the Tribunal in proceedings under Section 83 -- and subject to any further appellate orders of the High Court -- no waqf shall be dispossessed of its property and no third-party rights shall be created in disputed properties. ### Provisions not stayed The Court declined to stay the abolition of waqf by user, citing evidence of its misuse including the appropriation of government land in Andhra Pradesh. It similarly upheld Section 36 on mandatory registration, Section 3D on ASI monuments, Section 3E on scheduled tribe land, and the deletion of Section 40 (the Board's suo-motu power). The interim judgment makes clear that its observations do not bind the bench at the final hearing and that all constitutional arguments remain open. --- ## Constitutional arguments in depth The petitions raise challenges under multiple articles of the Constitution. The key grounds are summarised below. **Article 25 -- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion** The five-year practice requirement for creating a waqf is challenged as imposing a state-defined threshold for what constitutes adequate religious identity. Petitioners argue that the right to make a charitable endowment in accordance with one's faith flows from Article 25, and the state cannot condition it on a bureaucratically verified duration of practice. **Article 26 -- Right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs** This is the centrepiece of the challenge. Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and to administer its property in accordance with law. Petitioners argue, led by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal among others, that waqf administration is an affair of the Muslim religious denomination, and mandating non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards and transferring adjudicatory authority to revenue officers strips the community of its Article 26 right to manage its own institutions. The Supreme Court, during arguments, noted that Article 26 is a secular provision that applies to all religious denominations, and invited argument on whether "management of affairs" under Article 26(b) extends to the composition of statutory administrative bodies or only to purely religious functions. **Article 14 -- Equality before law** Multiple grounds are raised. The abolition of waqf by user is challenged as selectively targeting Muslim endowments while Hindu temple trusts and Christian charitable endowments created by long usage are not equivalently affected. The 90-day appeal from Tribunal to High Court is challenged as creating an inequality compared to equivalent Hindu religious endowment boards in various states whose tribunal orders do not carry a comparable appeal mechanism. **Article 300A -- Right to property** Section 3C, which suspends a property's waqf status pending an officer's inquiry, is challenged as a deprivation of property without adequate legal process, in violation of Article 300A. Petitioners argue the provision allows an executive officer to effectively freeze waqf rights without any judicial oversight, and that the affected mutawalli or waqf board has no effective remedy during the inquiry period. **The government's defence** The Union frames the amendments as regulatory and administrative reform, not religious interference. Its core arguments are: - Waqf boards are statutory bodies created by Parliament; Parliament may alter their composition. - The misuse of Section 40 and waqf-by-user declarations to appropriate private and government land has been judicially documented. - Article 26 guarantees the right to manage religious affairs, not the right to manage statutory administrative bodies free from legislative oversight. - The Collector's inquiry under Section 3C is not a final adjudication of title; it merely suspends waqf status pending formal Tribunal proceedings where full procedural rights apply. - Non-Muslim members constitute a minority of the total board composition and do not affect the denominational character of the institution. --- ## Practical impact on mutawallis, boards, and litigants **For mutawallis** A mutawalli managing a waqf that was previously recognised as waqf by user -- but never formally registered -- faces acute uncertainty. Such a waqf no longer receives automatic statutory protection under the amended definition. The mutawalli must register the property with documentary evidence of the original dedication; where no documentation survives, the registration may be refused. The Supreme Court's interim order protects existing waqf possession pending Tribunal proceedings, but the medium-term risk of denotification remains live. Mutawallis managing properties that are also claimed by the government face the suspended but still legislatively existing Section 3C mechanism. While the interim order prevents dispossession pending Tribunal determination, the inquiry process itself is not stayed -- meaning the Collector can still appoint an officer to investigate, and that investigation can generate a report adverse to the waqf, which then triggers Tribunal litigation. **For Waqf Boards** The deletion of Section 40 fundamentally changes how Boards can operate. Previously, a Board could proactively survey and identify waqf properties and notify them through suo-motu proceedings. Now, the Board can only act on existing registrations and formal petitions. This significantly limits the Board's role from an active administrator to a largely reactive registry. The composition requirements under Sections 9 and 14 are partially under the Court's interim conditions. Until the matter is finally decided, Boards must comply with the ceiling on non-Muslim members imposed by the interim order (four in the Central Waqf Council, three in State Boards), which is less restrictive than what petitioners sought but more restrictive than the Act's bare text allows. **For litigants before Waqf Tribunals** The new 90-day appeal to the High Court under Section 83 has introduced a second tier of litigation that did not exist before. For litigants who were aggrieved by Tribunal orders and previously had to seek extraordinary writ relief, this is an accessible statutory remedy. However, it also means a winning party before the Tribunal must now budget for potential High Court appeal proceedings. The Supreme Court's interim protection -- no dispossession and no third-party rights pending Tribunal and appellate determination -- gives some breathing room. For a practical guide to how to read a Tribunal order and frame your appeal grounds, the principles discussed in [how to read and brief an Indian judgment](/blog/how-to-read-a-judgment) apply with equal force to specialised Tribunal proceedings. **For advocates** Property lawyers advising waqf-related clients need to map each property against the new categories: (a) formally registered waqf with deed -- safest position; (b) registered waqf by user before the commencement date -- protected unless in government dispute; (c) unregistered waqf by user -- most exposed. The constitutional litigation means significant uncertainty will persist until the Supreme Court delivers its final judgment. Interim relief orders are subject to modification. Understanding the full scope of Article 26 and its intersection with statutory regulation is also worth revisiting; the broader principles of High Court writ jurisdiction are explored in [High Courts: Article 226 writ jurisdiction explained](/blog/high-courts-article-226). --- ## Provisions stayed versus provisions upheld | Provision | In force after the 15 Sept 2025 interim order? | |---|---| | Section 3(r), five-year Islam practice requirement | ✗ Stayed (no verification mechanism yet) | | Section 3C proviso, Collector determines govt vs waqf | ✗ Stayed (violates separation of powers) | | Sections 3C(3) & 3C(4), revenue record changes by officer | ✗ Stayed (arbitrary, no judicial oversight) | | Abolition of waqf by user from Section 3(r) definition | ✓ Not stayed (misuse cited) | | Non-Muslim members on Central Waqf Council (Sect 9) | ✓ Not stayed but capped at 4 of 22 by Court | | Non-Muslim members on State Waqf Boards (Sect 14) | ✓ Not stayed but capped at 3 of 11 by Court | | Section 36, mandatory registration with documentation | ✓ Not stayed | | Section 40 deletion, removal of suo-motu Board power | ✓ Not stayed | | Section 3D, ASI protected monument exclusion | ✓ Not stayed | | Section 3E, Scheduled Tribe land exclusion | ✓ Not stayed | | Section 83, 90-day High Court appeal from Tribunal | ✓ Not stayed | | Possession of waqf pending final Tribunal order | ✓ Protected by Court direction | | Third-party rights pending Tribunal order | ✗ Prohibited by Court direction | --- ## How Niyam helps The intersection of constitutional law, personal law, property law, and administrative law that characterises the waqf challenge requires research across multiple bodies of statute and precedent. Niyam is built for exactly this kind of layered legal research -- it searches across 72,000+ Indian judgments and primary statutory sources, returning cited answers rather than bare summaries. Whether you need to trace the doctrine of "denominational management" under Article 26 through its case-law lineage, locate the specific sections of the UMEED Act as enacted, or identify which interim conditions bind which board, Niyam reduces research time substantially. [Start for ₹100](https://app.niyam.ai/register) and search the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 case law today. --- ## Frequently asked questions ### What is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 also known as? The Act is formally styled the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act No. 14 of 2025). It renames the parent statute -- the Waqf Act, 1995 -- as the "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995," commonly abbreviated as the UMEED Act. The parent statute is sometimes referred to as the UMEED Act in government communications, though practitioners continue to refer to the underlying statute as the Waqf Act. ### When did the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 come into force? The Act received presidential assent on 5 April 2025 and was notified to come into force on 8 April 2025. ### What happened to the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923? The companion Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Act, 2025 (Act No. 15 of 2025) was passed alongside the Amendment Act and repealed the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923. This colonial-era statute had become largely redundant after the 1995 Act but had continued to operate in parallel. Its repeal consolidates all waqf governance under the single amended 1995 Act. ### What was "waqf by user" and why was it controversial? Waqf by user referred to the principle that a property used continuously and openly for religious or charitable purposes could be recognised as waqf even without a formal deed of dedication. Courts recognised this principle because many waqfs were created centuries ago before written documentation was customary. Critics argued that Section 40 of the pre-2025 Act allowed Waqf Boards to classify government and private land as waqf simply by asserting long use, without giving affected owners adequate notice or hearing. The government pointed to specific instances in Andhra Pradesh where this mechanism was used to claim government land. Supporters of the doctrine argue it protects genuinely ancient endowments whose documents have been lost. ### Has the Supreme Court stayed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025? No, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Act as a whole. In its interim judgment of 15 September 2025, the bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih stayed specific provisions -- namely, the five-year practice requirement under Section 3(r), and the provisions giving revenue officers the power to determine property status and alter revenue records under Sections 3C(3) and 3C(4) -- while upholding most other provisions. The Act continues to operate in all other respects subject to the Court's conditions on board composition. ### Which bench is hearing the Waqf amendment challenge? The case is currently before a two-judge bench of **Chief Justice B.R. Gavai** and **Justice Augustine George Masih**. The case was originally listed before Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna but was transferred to the Gavai bench in May 2025 following Chief Justice Khanna's retirement. ### What are the main constitutional articles under challenge? Petitioners rely principally on: **Article 14** (equality, challenging the abolition of waqf by user as selectively targeting Muslim endowments); **Article 25** (freedom of religion, challenging the five-year practice requirement); **Article 26** (right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs, challenging the inclusion of non-Muslim members and the Collector's adjudicatory role); and **Article 300A** (right to property, challenging the suspension of waqf status pending an officer's inquiry without adequate procedural safeguards). Petitioners have also invoked Articles 15, 19, 21, 29, and 30 in their consolidated written submissions. ### What did the Supreme Court say about non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards? The Court did not stay the inclusion of non-Muslim members but imposed conditions. It directed that the Central Waqf Council shall not have more than four non-Muslim members out of its 22 total members, and that State Waqf Boards shall not have more than three non-Muslim members out of 11. The Court also directed that the ex-officio chairperson of Boards should come from the Muslim community as far as possible. ### Can a mutawalli still create a waqf after the 2025 amendment? It is the waqif -- not the mutawalli -- who creates a waqf. Under the amended Act, a person wishing to create a waqf must (a) be the owner of the property dedicated, (b) have professed Islam for at least five years (though this requirement is currently stayed pending framing of verification rules), and (c) execute a formal deed or declaration which must be registered with the central digital portal under Section 36. ### What happens to existing waqf by user properties? Properties that were recognised and registered as waqf by user before the commencement of the 2025 Act retain their waqf status. However, if such a property is the subject of a pending or new dispute with the government claiming it is government land, the Section 3C inquiry mechanism applies -- though the provisions allowing alteration of revenue records pending inquiry are currently stayed by the Supreme Court's interim order. Unregistered waqf-by-user properties that have not been formally registered are the most exposed category. ### What is Section 3C and why is it controversial? Section 3C provides that where there is a question about whether a property is waqf property or government land, a designated officer above the rank of Collector, appointed by the State Government, shall inquire into the question and submit a report. Until the report is finalised, the property's waqf status is suspended and no changes to revenue records may be made. Petitioners argue this places a quasi-judicial function (determining property title) in the hands of an executive officer reporting to the state government, creating structural bias and violating the separation of powers. The Supreme Court stayed the portions of Section 3C dealing with revenue record corrections and the officer's power to alter property status pending inquiry. ### What changed about Waqf Tribunal appeals? Under the Waqf Act, 1995 (before the 2025 amendment), the Waqf Tribunal's decisions were final and could not be appealed -- parties aggrieved by Tribunal orders had to seek a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226. The 2025 Act amends Section 83 to introduce a statutory 90-day appeal from Tribunal orders to the relevant High Court. The appeal must be filed within 90 days, though courts can condone delay. This means waqf property disputes now have a longer formal litigation path but a clearer appellate route than the earlier writ-only regime. ### Is the case a final judgment or still pending? The case is **pending** on the merits. The Supreme Court's order of 15 September 2025 was an **interim order** on the prayer for a stay of the Act during the pendency of the main petitions. The bench explicitly stated that its interim observations would not prevent parties from making full submissions on constitutional validity at the final hearing. The final judgment determining whether the Act is constitutionally valid has not yet been pronounced. ### What did the Court direct about waqf property possession? The Court directed that until the issue under Section 3C regarding a property's title is finally decided by the Waqf Tribunal in proceedings under Section 83 -- and subject to further orders of the High Court in any appeal -- waqfs shall not be dispossessed of their property. No third-party rights shall be created in such properties during the inquiry or pending litigation. ### What arguments did the government make in its counter-affidavit? The Union argued that the amendments are regulatory, not religious: Parliament can alter the composition of statutory bodies it creates; the historic misuse of Section 40 and waqf-by-user declarations has been documented by courts and high-level committees; non-Muslims are in a minority on the boards even under the Act; and the Collector's inquiry under Section 3C is procedural, with the final adjudication left to the Tribunal where full procedural rights apply. The government sought dismissal of all petitions. ### Which states opposed or supported the amendment? Several BJP-governed states filed submissions supporting the amendments, and the Union of India as the principal respondent defended the Act. Conversely, **Kerala** opposed the amendments before the Supreme Court. The Sree Narayana Manava Dharmam Trust, a Hindu religious organisation, also filed submissions opposing the Act -- indicating that the opposition was not uniformly organised along religious lines. ### Does the 2025 Act affect Hindu temples or Christian endowments? The 2025 Act amends only the Waqf Act, 1995, which governs Muslim charitable endowments. Hindu religious and charitable endowments are governed by state-level endowment legislation (such as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act or equivalent in other states) and are not affected by this statute. Petitioners argue before the Supreme Court that the selective treatment of Muslim endowments -- particularly the abolition of waqf by user -- amounts to invidious discrimination under Article 14 because there is no equivalent removal of long-usage protections from Hindu or Christian endowments. ### How does this case compare to the Supreme Court's electoral bonds judgment? Both cases involve constitutional challenges to legislation that petitioners argue distort a significant public institution -- in electoral bonds, political party funding; in the waqf case, the administration of minority religious property. The method of constitutional analysis is similar: the Court weighs the legislature's stated purpose and the proportionality of the means chosen against fundamental rights constraints. However, the electoral bonds case resulted in a final unanimous judgment striking down the scheme, while the waqf case has so far produced only a partial interim stay, with the merits pending. You can read about the Supreme Court's approach in the electoral bonds matter at [Supreme Court electoral bonds judgment explained](/blog/electoral-bonds-judgment). ### What should a Muslim religious trust do right now? Pending the Supreme Court's final judgment, the practical steps are: (1) audit all properties to identify which were registered as express waqf with documentation and which were registered or recognised as waqf by user; (2) ensure all registrable waqfs are filed with the central digital portal under Section 36 within the applicable window; (3) seek legal advice on any property that is the subject of a government claim, given that the Section 3C inquiry mechanism is partly in force (with the revenue-record-alteration portions stayed); and (4) document evidence of religious use for all properties where the original deed is unavailable. ### Where can I find the full text of the Act? The official text of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act No. 14 of 2025) is available on the India Code portal at indiacode.nic.in. The PIB has also published a detailed FAQ on the Act. The Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Act, 2025 (Act No. 15 of 2025) is likewise available on indiacode.nic.in. For analysis of how to read and extract the operative provisions from a complex amending statute, [how to read and brief an Indian judgment](/blog/how-to-read-a-judgment) offers a useful methodology that applies to statutory reading as well. ### What are the next steps in the Supreme Court proceedings? Following the interim judgment of 15 September 2025, the case proceeds to hearings on the merits of the constitutional challenge. Both sides will file detailed written submissions. The Court will hear full oral arguments on the questions of whether the Act violates Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A, before pronouncing a final judgment. Given the complexity and the number of parties involved, the final determination is expected to take considerable time. Practitioners tracking the case can follow hearing updates on scobserver.in and livelaw.in. --- ## Key takeaways - The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 received presidential assent on 5 April 2025 and came into force on 8 April 2025, amending over 40 provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. - The companion Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Act, 2025 repealed the 1923 colonial-era statute, consolidating all waqf governance under a single amended law. - The Act abolishes "waqf by user" for new creations, re-introduces a five-year practice requirement for waqif eligibility, mandates non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards, empowers a Collector-nominated officer to determine whether property is waqf or government land, removes the Board's suo-motu Section 40 power, and opens Tribunal orders to 90-day High Court appeal. - Over 65 petitions challenged the Act in the Supreme Court; the case is consolidated as "In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025" and is currently before CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. - On 15 September 2025, the bench declined to stay the Act in its entirety but suspended the five-year practice requirement (pending verification rules), the revenue-officer property-status determination, and related revenue record amendments, citing lack of implementation mechanism and separation-of-powers concerns. - The Court also capped non-Muslim membership on Waqf Boards (four of 22 on the Central Council; three of 11 on State Boards) and directed that no waqf shall be dispossessed pending final Tribunal determination. - Petitions raise challenges under Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A; the final constitutional judgment has not been pronounced and the case remains pending on the merits. - Practical implications are significant for mutawallis, Waqf Boards, and property litigants -- especially for unregistered waqf-by-user properties and properties disputed by the government. - The new 90-day appeal from Waqf Tribunal orders to the High Court creates a formal appellate tier that did not previously exist, relevant to all pending and future Tribunal proceedings. For deeper research on the constitutional issues around writ jurisdiction and the limitations of appellate intervention, see [High Courts: Article 226 writ jurisdiction explained](/blog/high-courts-article-226). For context on how the new criminal law reform legislation also reshaped fundamental procedural frameworks in 2025, [new criminal laws: BNS, BNSS, BSA -- what changed](/blog/new-criminal-laws-bns-bnss-bsa) is a useful companion. [Start for ₹100](https://app.niyam.ai/register) -- Niyam searches across 72,000+ Indian judgments and statutes to give you cited, grounded answers on complex constitutional and property law questions like the ones raised by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Contact us at hello@niyam.ai.