Anwarlhaq Baig
New Delhi: While the Supreme Court of India has offered limited interim relief on the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, petitioners and legal experts have responded with a mix of cautious optimism and deep concern, reiterating that the larger battle over the law’s constitutionality is far from over.
The Supreme Court of India on April 17 issued strong directions in response to multiple petitions filed by prominent Muslim leaders, organizations, and public representatives challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Court has ordered that the existing status quo on all waqf properties—whether registered, notified, or waqf-by-user—must be maintained until further orders.
This comes amidst growing concern within the Muslim community that the new amendments were aimed at undermining centuries-old Islamic charitable institutions and interfering with the autonomy of religious endowments.
The apex court directed that no Waqf properties—including those deemed as “waqf by user”—shall be de-notified or altered, and that no appointments of non-Muslim members to Central and State Waqf bodies will be made until the next hearing on May 5. However, petitioners argue that only a small portion of the 44 amendments were addressed, and the broader constitutional challenges remain unresolved.
The Supreme Court recorded a categorical assurance from the Solicitor General of India that No appointments of non-Muslims will be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards under the amended provisions. No waqf property, including waqf-by-user, whether registered or notified, will be de-notified or altered until the next hearing.
The Supreme Court posted the case for final arguments on May 5, 2025, at 2 PM. Until then, the status quo stands protected.
The petitioners, including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, JIH, APCR, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, IUML, and others, argued that several provisions of the amended Act are unconstitutional and discriminatory, particularly:
- The removal of “waqf-by-user” recognition, which threatens historic mosques and shrines established through community use.
- The inclusion of non-Muslim members in religious Waqf bodies, undermining the autonomy and religious nature of Islamic endowments.
- The requirement of documentary proof for centuries-old waqfs, despite their oral and customary origins.
- The provision that suspends waqf status of a property the moment a Collector raises a dispute over it being government land.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, stressed that this law, if enforced, would result in massive disenfranchisement of Muslim religious trusts and potentially pave the way for large-scale land takeovers of Waqf properties. “These amendments will effectively erase centuries of religious practice, community service, and heritage under the guise of bureaucratic regulation,” said Mr. Sibal during the hearing.
Advocate Sibal warns the Court, “You’re asking for 300-year-old waqfs like Delhi’s Jama Masjid to provide registration papers. These were created orally, through use, by communities. How can you demand deeds from centuries ago?”
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, leading the bench along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, expressed deep concern over the “drastic change of status quo” brought by the law. The Court emphasized that while legislations are not ordinarily stayed, “in cases where pending petitions raise serious constitutional questions, the existing legal landscape should not be altered in a way that prejudices rights.”
Under pressure, SG Mehta scrambled to contain the fallout, assuring the Court that “No appointments of non-Muslims to Waqf Boards or Councils will be made till the next hearing.No waqf properties—including waqf-by-user—will be de-notified or altered during the case. Union Government will file a detailed response within 7 days.”
But CJI was quick to remind the SG, “You speak for the Centre, not the States. If any State appoints non-Muslims to Waqf Boards in this period, the Court may declare it void ab initio.”
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) national spokesperson Dr SQR Ilyas while welcoming it but warned “The Supreme Court has temporarily halted only two of the 44 amendments. Until this entire Act is repealed, our legal and democratic resistance under AIMPLB’s leadership will continue. ”
One of the petitioners, JIH Vice President Salim Engineer welcomed the temporary stay but demands its full repeal, “Relief from the Supreme Court is welcome, but true justice will only come when this law is struck down entirely.”
AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan said, “The Waqf Board will remain as it was. We respect the Court’s decision. We trust the Court will expose those trying to politicize the issue and deliver justice to Muslims.”
Former Chief Election Commissioner Dr. S.Y. Quraishi called the legislation a deliberate attempt to seize Muslim lands, “The Waqf Act is undoubtedly a blatantly sinister plan of the government to grab Muslim lands. I’m sure the Supreme Court will call it out. Misinformation has already played its part through propaganda.”
Renowned advocate Prashant Bhushan praised the Supreme Court’s interim action “When the SC acts to protect the Constitution and minority rights—Kudos!”
The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), one of the petitioners, noted that the Centre’s concession on maintaining status quo came “following APCR’s petition before the Court.”
TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee, a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Waqf, issued a scathing rebuke “This law was passed purely by brute majority, not by merit. Jagdambika Pal should resign immediately for his undemocratic handling of the JPC. I’m confident this law will be declared unconstitutional.”
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind leader Maulana Mahmood Madani reacts “We are encouraged that the Hon’ble Court has acknowledged key concerns, including the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards, abolition of waqf by user, and arbitrary powers to Collectors.” He added, “These are not just Muslim concerns. Legal scholars, civil society, and rights organizations across India are raising alarm. The widespread opposition proves this law is unjust and must be defeated to protect constitutional values.”
With the matter now scheduled for a crucial hearing on May 5, legal and community groups are preparing for a decisive battle in court. While the Supreme Court’s interim protections offer a temporary safeguard, petitioners warn that only a full judicial review and repeal of the amendments can truly protect minority rights and India’s pluralistic heritage.