Supreme Court Orders Status Quo on Waqf Act Amendments, Hearing Set for May 5

New Delhi, - In a significant interim order with nationwide implications for Waqf properties, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Union government to maintain a status quo on the recently enacted Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. A three-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, issued the directive on Thursday, effectively putting a temporary hold on key provisions of the amended legislation. The court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for May 5.

The apex court's order mandates that the status quo will remain in place until the next hearing, specifically ensuring that Waqf properties, including those designated as ‘Waqf by user’ and registered under the original Waqf Act of 1995, will not be de-notified. Furthermore, the court clarified that non-Muslim individuals will not be appointed to Central Waqf Councils and State Waqf Boards, reinforcing the religious character of these bodies.

This interim directive comes in response to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, which received presidential assent on April 5 after robust debates in both houses of Parliament. The amendment act has triggered widespread concern and legal challenges from various Muslim organizations and political entities, leading to the current intervention by the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Hearing

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, assured the court that the government would not make any appointments to the Central Waqf Council and Auqaf Boards as per the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act in the interim period. He also affirmed that properties already declared Waqf by user and registered under the 1995 Act would remain undisturbed until further orders.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the urgency and complexity of the matter, directed the government to file a comprehensive response to the petitions within one week. Petitioners have been granted five days thereafter to file their rejoinders to the government's reply, setting a tight schedule for the initial stages of this critical legal battle.

While a significant number of pleas, totaling 72, have been filed challenging the Amendment Act, the bench clarified that it would initially focus on hearing arguments in five representative petitions. The court asked lawyers representing various petitioners to coordinate among themselves to determine who would lead the arguments in the preliminary hearings.

Understanding ‘Waqf by User’ and its Significance

A central point of contention in the petitions, and highlighted by the Supreme Court itself, is the concept of ‘Waqf by user’. This term refers to properties that have historically been used for Waqf purposes, even without formal deeds or explicit declarations, and have been recognized as Waqf based on long-standing usage and customary practices. During Wednesday’s hearing, the bench questioned the Centre on the implications of the Amendment Act for such Waqfs.

“How will you register such Waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem,” the bench observed, emphasizing the historical and legal recognition of Waqf by user.

This observation indicates the court’s concern that the Amendment Act, in its current form, might inadvertently jeopardize legitimately established Waqf properties under the ‘Waqf by user’ category, potentially causing significant disruption to religious and charitable institutions that depend on these properties.

Legislative Background and Political Context

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was passed by both houses of Parliament amidst significant opposition. In the Rajya Sabha, it garnered 128 votes in favor and 95 against, while in the Lok Sabha, it passed with 288 votes for and 232 against. This legislative journey itself reflects the contentious nature of the amendments and the deeply divided opinions surrounding them.

Several prominent political and religious organizations have filed petitions challenging the Act, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi , the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, and MPs from DMK and Congress, including Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Jawed . The sheer number and diversity of petitioners underscore the widespread apprehension and legal challenges the Amendment Act faces.

The Centre had preemptively filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, seeking to be heard before any interim order was passed, demonstrating the government's awareness of the impending legal challenges and its intent to defend the legislative changes.

Supreme Court's Concerns and Questions to the Centre

Beyond the status of ‘Waqf by user’, the Supreme Court raised several critical points during the hearings, indicating its preliminary concerns about the Amendment Act. The bench specifically questioned whether Muslims would now be permitted to be part of Hindu religious trusts, probing the principle of religious inclusivity and reciprocity in religious property administration.

The court also flagged three key areas of concern for potential interim orders during the Wednesday hearing, which ultimately culminated in Thursday’s status quo directive:

1. Protection of Court-Declared Waqfs: The Court emphasized that properties already declared as Waqf by courts, whether through ‘Waqf by user’ or ‘Waqf by deed’, should not be de-notified while the challenge to the Amendment Act is being heard.
2. Collector's Inquiry and Waqf Status: The Court indicated its intent to stay the provision of the Amendment Act that would prevent a property from being treated as Waqf during a Collector’s inquiry into whether it is government land. This provision was seen as potentially undermining the established Waqf status of properties during administrative inquiries.
3. Composition of Waqf Boards: The Court reiterated its stance that all members of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, except ex-officio members, must be Muslims, reinforcing the religious representation in these bodies.

Furthermore, the CJI raised two fundamental questions for both sides to address: firstly, whether the Supreme Court should entertain the petitions directly or relegate them to the High Court; and secondly, to briefly outline the core arguments being urged in the challenge. These questions suggest the court is considering the jurisdictional aspects of the case and seeking to streamline the legal arguments for efficient adjudication.

Implications of the Status Quo Order

The Supreme Court’s status quo order effectively pauses the implementation of certain contentious provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. This interim measure provides a temporary reprieve for Waqf institutions and properties, especially those under the ‘Waqf by user’ category, from potential de-notification or administrative changes under the amended law.

For legal practitioners specializing in religious property law and Waqf law, this development is crucial. It signifies a period of legal uncertainty and necessitates a careful monitoring of further court proceedings. Waqf boards, administrators, and beneficiaries must remain informed about the ongoing legal developments and prepare for potential long-term implications based on the final outcome of the Supreme Court’s adjudication.

The scheduling of the next hearing for May 5 indicates the Supreme Court's intent to address the matter expeditiously. The coming weeks will be critical as the government prepares its response and petitioners refine their legal arguments. The legal community and stakeholders in Waqf properties will be keenly observing the proceedings, anticipating further directions from the apex court in this significant case concerning religious property rights and legislative amendments.

The interim status quo order underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing legislative action with the protection of established legal and religious rights. As the case progresses, it will likely set important precedents for the interpretation and application of Waqf law in India, particularly in the context of legislative amendments and the safeguarding of historically recognized religious properties.