The interim judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has generated unease among many in the Muslim community. The verdict has been received with dissatisfaction by several litigants, who feel that their concerns remain unaddressed.
One of the issues is the Court’s ruling that up to four non-Muslims may sit on the 22-member Central Waqf Council, and up to three non-Muslims on State Waqf Boards of 11 members. Critics ask why non-Muslims should be included in boards meant to administer exclusively Muslim endowments, when no similar provisions exist for Hindu, Sikh, or Christian boards. A legal explanation from the Court is awaited on this question.
Another point of concern is the five-year requirement to prove Muslim identity before creating a Waqf. The Court has stayed this provision, but some ambiguity remains. While it clarified that no officer can unilaterally decide who qualifies to create a Waqf, it left the authority to define eligibility to state governments. Observers worry this could allow political interests to override community rights.
The interim order on “Waqf by User” has also raised questions regarding the protection of Awqaf or dharmart properties. The Court did not address Sections 107 and 108 of the Act, which many believe are essential safeguards against encroachment and government takeover. Some parts of the judgment, particularly paragraphs 143–152, have further complicated the issue. The three deleted provisions of the original Act—Section 104 allowing non-Muslims to create Waqf, Section 107 exempting recovery of encroached Waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 108 concerning evacuee Waqf properties—were not addressed in the interim judgment.
In addition, the government had introduced 115 amendments to the Waqf Act, including 33 insertions, 45 substitutions, and 37 deletions. The Supreme Court has addressed only a limited number of these in its interim order. Many provisions flagged as potentially infringing constitutional rights remain untouched, which has left critics dissatisfied.
The Supreme Court judgment on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has therefore disappointed many Muslim litigants who feel it falls short of constitutional protection for their religious endowments. Earlier, similar discontent was expressed in the wake of the Court’s Ayodhya verdict.
Community leaders argue that the right to manage Waqf properties should rest with Muslims themselves, similar to the autonomy granted to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has already rejected the judgment and announced a public meeting on November 16, 2025, at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan under the slogan “Deen Bachao – Desh Bachao” (“Save Faith, Save Country”).
As the final hearing is due in November, attention now turns to whether the Supreme Court will address the objections raised in the interim judgment.
---
*Journalist based in Chrnnai
Comments