Supreme Court Pauses Key Parts of Waqf Amendment Act After Nationwide Protests

The Supreme Court has paused some controversial sections of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, which had triggered large protests across the country. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih said while the whole law will not be stopped, certain provisions need to be put on hold until the court fully decides on the petitions challenging its constitutionality.

One major concern was the sweeping powers given to District Collectors under the new law. The Act had allowed Collectors to decide on ownership disputes of Waqf properties and block registration if they believed a property was disputed or belonged to the government. The court ruled that this gives arbitrary power to Collectors and violates the principle of separation of powers. It said only tribunals and courts can settle such disputes, and no third-party rights can be created until then.

The bench also addressed other provisions. It said:

• 
  

  No more than three non-Muslim members should be part of a Waqf Board.

  
  


• 
  

  No more than four non-Muslim members should be in the Central Waqf Council.

  
  


• 
  

  The rule that only Muslims practicing the faith for at least five years can declare a Waqf must be paused, as it allows misuse without clear safeguards.

  
  

The judges stressed that laws passed by Parliament are usually presumed constitutional, and courts intervene only in rare cases. But they said certain protections are necessary until the matter is fully heard.

The 1995 Waqf Act was amended earlier this year and received presidential approval in April. The government said the changes were meant to address land disputes and encroachment issues involving Waqf properties. However, Muslim groups called the amendments unconstitutional and a move to take over Waqf land.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, one of the petitioners, welcomed the court’s order. Member Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas said many of their objections, including those on “Waqf by user,” protected monuments, and the five-year rule, had been accepted, giving them “satisfaction to a large extent.”