The Supreme Court issued an interim order on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act on September 15. The court decided against a complete stay on the law but did put a temporary hold on three specific sections. A two-judge bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, determined that while repealing the entire law wasn’t necessary, certain parts of the new law required legal protection. The court had reserved its verdict after extensive hearings on May 22.
Following the ruling, Maulana Arshad Madani, the President of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, expressed his approval of the court’s decision and thanked the court. He noted that the court had acknowledged the concerns and serious apprehensions raised by Muslims nationwide regarding specific sections of the new law, leading to the interim stay on those three sections.
Maulana Madani stated that the fight is not over. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind will persist with its legal and democratic efforts until the law is revoked. He described the new Waqf law as a direct attack on the Indian constitution, which guarantees not only equal rights to citizens and minorities but also complete religious freedom.
He said that the law constitutes a dangerous, unconstitutional plot to deprive Muslims of their religious freedom. Consequently, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has challenged the Waqf Act 2025 in the Supreme Court. He expressed his belief that the Supreme Court will deliver constitutional justice by eliminating this law.
Maulana Madani also thanked his legal team, especially Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. He credited their strong arguments for convincing the court that the amendments in the Waqf law are harmful to Waqf properties, unconstitutional, and severely damaging to the religious freedom of Muslims.
The court put a hold on specific provisions. The new law stipulated that only those who had practiced Islam for the past five years could establish a Waqf. The court suspended this provision, stating it would not be implemented until state governments established a process.
The new law transferred all powers to the District Collector, giving the collector the final say on whether a disputed property was Waqf. The court also stayed this, stating that there would be no interference with disputed Waqf property until a tribunal or court decision. The court further stated that no party could transfer rights to a third party until the dispute was resolved. The court clarified that the Commissioner could not determine the ownership of any property.
The court also clarified that the Central Waqf Council would have no more than four non-Muslim members, and State Waqf Boards would have no more than three. While the court did not block the appointment of non-Muslim CEOs in the State Waqf Boards, it stressed that Muslim CEOs should be appointed whenever possible. The court did not interfere with the registration requirements, noting that Waqf properties have always been registered.
Chief Justice B.R. Gavai read the judgment, stating that the court can only stay or repeal a law under exceptional circumstances. He noted that while the entire law was challenged, certain sections were particularly important.
The central government agreed that no Waqf property, including those by-use, declared through notification or registration, would be de-notified or have their status changed.