The Supreme Court of India, in an order dated 15 September 2025, declined to impose a blanket stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but stayed specific controversial provisions of the legislation. A Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih granted interim relief by staying the provision under Section 3(r) mandating five years of Islam practice for creation of a Waqf, as well as the provision vesting dispute resolution powers in revenue officers.
Background
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, introduced sweeping changes to the governance framework of Waqf properties in India. Among the most contested amendments was Section 3(r), which required that a person must have practised Islam for at least five years to create a valid Waqf — a condition that critics argued imposed an unprecedented religious practice test with no basis in Islamic jurisprudence or prior Waqf legislation.
Another challenged provision transferred certain dispute resolution functions from Waqf Tribunals to revenue officers, raising concerns about the independence and expertise of adjudicating authorities dealing with Waqf property disputes. Multiple petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Act on grounds of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, and interference with the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court made the following determinations in its interim order:
No blanket stay: The Court refused to stay the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, holding that a wholesale suspension of parliamentary legislation at the interim stage would be inappropriate absent a demonstration that the Act as a whole was manifestly unconstitutional.
Stay on Section 3(r): The provision mandating five years of Islam practice for Waqf creation was stayed. The Court found a prima facie case that imposing a temporal requirement on religious practice for the purpose of creating a religious endowment raised serious constitutional concerns.
Stay on revenue officer jurisdiction: The provision transferring dispute resolution to revenue officers was also stayed, with the Court observing that diverting Waqf disputes from specialised tribunals to revenue machinery raised questions about the adequacy of adjudicatory safeguards.
Existing framework continues: Pending final adjudication, the Waqf governance framework as it existed prior to the stayed provisions would continue to apply.
Implications for Practitioners
This selective stay approach signals that the Court is prepared to scrutinise individual provisions rather than invalidate the entire legislation. Practitioners advising Waqf boards and mutawallis should note that the stayed provisions cannot be enforced pending final adjudication, meaning the pre-amendment position on Waqf creation and dispute resolution continues to govern.
The stay on the revenue officer provision is particularly significant for property dispute practitioners, as it preserves the jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals for the present. Counsel handling pending Waqf property disputes should ensure that proceedings remain before the Tribunal rather than being transferred to revenue authorities.
Constitutional law practitioners should monitor the final hearing closely, as the Court's engagement with the five-year Islam practice requirement may generate significant jurisprudence on the extent to which the State can impose conditions on religious practice for the exercise of religious endowment rights.