Anwarulhaq Baig
New Delhi, Sept.15, 2025 : The Supreme Court’s interim order staying key provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has stirred up mixed reactions across political, religious, and social lines. While many Muslim leaders expressed relief at the partial reprieve, the overall mood is one of disappointment and frustration that the judgment fell short of fully protecting waqf properties from government overreach and encroachment. Opposition and Congress leaders hailed the verdict as a defense of constitutional values, whereas the government cautiously welcomed the judgment, calling it a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, certain Hindu lawyers voiced dissatisfaction with the interim decision, claiming it did not go far enough in addressing broader issues.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a key petitioner in the case, announced the postponement of its scheduled press conference citing “unavoidable circumstances.” However, Board spokesperson Dr. S. Q. R. Ilyas did not hold back. In a statement charged with emotion, he said, “The community expected a stay on all provisions that contradict the Constitution. While the Court has granted partial relief, it has left many arbitrary and unconstitutional clauses untouched. This is a disappointment for justice-seeking citizens.”
Dr. Ilyas further warned that unchecked government powers could soon be abused. “Many crucial provisions, blatantly unfair and arbitrary, have not been stayed at this stage. The final decision is yet to come, but with the prejudice evident in government actions, we fear these provisions will be exploited.”
Despite the disappointment, the AIMPLB expressed relief that the Supreme Court’s interim relief provided some breathing space. According to the Dr. Ilyas, the Court protected property rights by staying the provision that allowed revenue officers to decide waqf ownership, emphasizing that executive authorities cannot arbitrarily interfere with citizens’ property rights. “It also halted Section 3C, which empowered government officials to strip properties of their waqf status during inquiries, reinforcing the principle of separation of powers.”
He further noted that the Court imposed strict limits on external interference in waqf management. According to him, the Central Waqf Council cannot have more than four non-Muslim members, while State Waqf Boards are capped at three non-Muslim members. The controversial requirement that a person must prove five years of professing Islam to create a waqf was also stayed until proper rules are framed.
Still, AIMPLB insists the amendments are a calculated attempt to weaken and seize waqf assets. The Board demands a complete repeal of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 and the restoration of the previous framework rooted in Islamic law. “Refusing to stay the entire Act leaves harmful provisions operational, especially the threat of de-recognizing ‘Waqf by user’ and enforcing mandatory documentation requirements that go against established practice,” Dr. Ilyas asserted.
In a bold declaration, he announced that the “Save Waqf Campaign” will surge ahead with renewed energy. The second phase, launched on September 1, includes nationwide dharnas, demonstrations, waqf marches, leadership arrests, roundtable meetings, interfaith conclaves, and press conferences. The movement will climax in a massive rally at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, on November 16, 2025, drawing participants from across the country.
While Maulana Syed Kaab Rashidi, advocate and legal advisor to Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, in a video, welcomed the decision as a temporary relief. “The Supreme Court has stayed many provisions, which I believe is a positive sign. We have been fighting against the amendment for a long time,” he stated, pointing to the ongoing struggle to safeguard waqf rights.
AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi struck a more cautious tone, calling the order an interim measure. “It is an interim order. We hope that the Supreme Court gives a final decision soon on the entire act. This order will not protect waqf properties from the NDA government’s act. Encroachers would be rewarded. Waqf properties will not be developed,” he said, warning that the fight is far from over.
Advocate M. R. Shamshad described the interim verdict as a major breakthrough. “Today’s order on the Waqf Amendment Act is reasonably good. All issues except one, related to Waqf by User, have been addressed. The requirement of being a practising Muslim for five years has been stayed. The vague inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Board and Council has been limited. The Collector’s power to alter records has been stayed, as it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Till the final decision is taken, no third-party rights shall be created,” he explained. He added, “This is a good order. We welcome it.”
Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi expressed gratitude toward the judiciary. “We thank the Supreme Court. It’s a big relief. The Court has put a hold on the government’s conspiracy and intentions. Many observations of the Court have given us great relief,” he said, highlighting that the verdict provides breathing space for minorities.
On the other side, Hindutva lawyer Vinshnu Shankar Jain sharply criticized the ruling, claiming judicial overreach. “The Supreme Court has stayed important provisions, especially Section 3(c). The amendment itself was incomplete. The relief given to government property provisions has also been stayed. The Court has transgressed its powers and this order is discriminatory. On the waqf issue, I do not agree either with the amendment or with the Court’s order. There was no proper hearing on the Waqf Act, 1995,” he argued.
Congress MP and JPC member Syed Nasser Hussain hailed the interim order as a reaffirmation of minority rights. “The Hon’ble Bench has reaffirmed constitutional safeguards and struck a balance between reform and representation. From the beginning, I cautioned the government against clauses that gave unbridled powers to officials and skewed representation. Today’s ruling vindicates our stand. Any reform must be transparent, consultative, and faithful to the Constitution,” he said, promising continued advocacy for minority rights.
Ajmer’s All India Sufi Sajjadanashin Council Chairman Syed Naseruddin Chishty welcomed the relief but pointed to larger political motives. “The Court has granted interim relief, and both sides seem satisfied for now. The government’s intentions were clear from the beginning. PM Modi has made every effort to address issues avoided due to vote politics. The entire country knows about corruption in waqf matters. The Court has made it clear that there is no basis to stay the entire Act,” he commented.
Senior advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, a prominent Hindutva figure, criticized the order. “The demand to stay the entire Act has been rejected. Only a few sections have been stayed. It’s an interim order and the final decision will come later. Regarding non-Muslims creating waqf, the Court said the status quo will be maintained until new rules are framed,” he remarked, signaling continued opposition.
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju welcomed the verdict as an endorsement of parliamentary authority. “I welcome the Supreme Court’s order after a full hearing. The Court knows the subject thoroughly. The government’s intention has been presented clearly. This order is a positive sign for democracy. A law passed in Parliament cannot be rejected and the Court has upheld that principle. We are satisfied with the judgment and will await further developments,” he asserted.
As reactions pour in, it is evident that while the interim stay has brought relief to several stakeholders, deep political and legal battles remain ahead. The reactions from political, religious, and legal circles show a deeply divided landscape, one marked by cautious optimism, ideological battles, and unresolved tensions over religious and constitutional rights.