Polity, Law, Minority Affairs, Governance, Ethics, and Current Affairs.

What is happening

The Supreme Court passed an interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. It did not stop the entire law, so most provisions continue. But it paused certain clauses that could operate unfairly until the Court hears the matter fully. The Bench (led by the Chief Justice of India) also issued temporary guardrails on appointments and on possession of disputed properties.

What exactly has been paused for now

• The part of Section 3(r) that required a donor to be “practising Islam for at least five years” to create a waqf is stayed until State Governments frame clear rules explaining how this will be verified.
  
• In Section 3C (the government-property check), the clauses that allowed a designated officer to change land records first and ask questions later are stayed. Now, title will be decided by the Waqf Tribunal, and no one can be dispossessed and records cannot be altered until the Tribunal decides, and any appeal to the High Court is completed. No third-party rights can be created in the meantime.
  
• Composition guardrails (interim): The Central Waqf Council should have not more than four non-Muslim members out of twenty-two; a State Waqf Board should have not more than three non-Muslim members out of eleven; and the Chief Executive Officer of a State Waqf Board should, as far as possible, be from the Muslim community.

What continues to operate

• The deletion of “waqf-by-user” for the future remains in force.
  
• Applying the Limitation Act to waqf property disputes remains in force.
  
• The repeal of some earlier overriding or special provisions also remains in force.

What changed: key provisions compared with the earlier framework

Earlier position under the Waqf Act, 1995

• Registration was required, but enforcement was uneven; the idea of “waqf-by-user” (long public religious or charitable use) existed.
  
• Title disputes went to the Waqf Tribunal; land-record changes usually followed after adjudication.
  
• Non-Muslim participation on Boards and the Central Council was limited but not fixed by number.
  
• Special or lenient limitation rules often benefitted very old waqf property claims.

Amendment Act, 2025 — broad shifts

• Who can create waqf: Tightens eligibility; introduced the now-stayed “five-year practising” condition for donors.
  
• Government-property filter (Section 3C): A senior officer examines whether land claimed as waqf is actually government property; the now-stayed parts allowed pre-adjudication corrections in revenue and Board records.
  
• “Waqf-by-user” removed prospectively: New claims must rely on deed or proper registration, not mere long use.
  
• Board and Council composition: Brings in outside professionals; the Supreme Court has temporarily capped the number of non-Muslim members and preferred a Muslim Chief Executive Officer.
  
• Limitation: Ordinary limitation periods apply to waqf property suits, bringing them at par with other property litigation.

Assessment of the changes

What the Union Government tried to fix

• Land-title clarity: Reduce disputes built only on long user; curb claims over government land; make records cleaner.
  
• Professional governance: Add members with skills in law, land, accounts, and management; strengthen audits and procedures.
  
• Parity in litigation: Apply ordinary limitation to avoid endless very old suits.
  

Concerns raised by petitioners (and how the Supreme Court responded)

• Due process and property rights (Article 300A): Allowing officials to change records before a Tribunal decision could prejudice waqf institutions and occupants. The Court stayed those clauses and froze dispossession and record changes until adjudication.
  
• Religious autonomy and equality (Articles 25, 26, and 14): The five-year practising test looked vague and intrusive. The Court paused it until clear, objective rules exist.
  
• Character of minority institutions: Uncapped non-Muslim membership and leadership could alter the institution’s character. The Court capped numbers and preferred a Muslim Chief Executive Officer for now.
  

What the Court accepted in principle

• Removal of “waqf-by-user” for the future is a policy choice to reduce misuse and uncertainty.
  
• Application of the Limitation Act is a reasonable harmonisation with general property law.
  

Likely ground impact during the interim

• Status quo protection: No dispossession and no change in land records until the Tribunal rules.
  
• Fewer new user-based claims: Push towards clear deeds and registration.
  
• Higher compliance: Waqf Boards must improve documentation, case management and timelines.
  

Way forward 

1. Tribunal-first approach to title
   Make the Supreme Court’s model permanent through rules: no record change and no eviction until Waqf Tribunal adjudication and appeal are finished.
   
2. Clean, public records
   Complete geographic information system mapping, digitise deeds, link Waqf property lists with State land records, and publish property ledgers for public audit.
   
3. Balanced governance
   Retain professional experts on Boards but with transparent caps, eligibility criteria, and conflict-of-interest disclosures. Follow a merit-based, consultative appointment process for Board members and the Chief Executive Officer.
   
4. Faster and fairer dispute resolution
   Strengthen Waqf Tribunals with judges in place, electronic filing, time standards, and mediation windows for non-title conflicts such as leases and accounts.
   
5. Accountability with welfare outcomes
   Enforce annual independent audits, market-linked rents, standard lease terms, and earmark part of waqf income for education, health, and social support, with year-wise disclosures.
   
6. Clarify the donor-eligibility idea
   If the “five-year practising” concept is retained, replace it with objective, non-intrusive tests (documented donor intent, community verification, appeal mechanism). Alternatively, adopt a neutral test focused on the charitable or religious intention in the deed.
   
7. Capacity building
   Train mutawallis and staff in land law, finance, and compliance; publish model deeds, checklists, and a plain-English waqf formation handbook.

Quick revision box

Interim guardrails to remember

• No blanket stay on the Act.
  
• The donor “five-year practising Islam” requirement and the “change-records-first” parts of the government-property filter are stayed.
  
• No dispossession and no record change until the Waqf Tribunal decides title and any High Court appeal is over.
  
• Temporary caps on non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards; Chief Executive Officer should preferably be Muslim.
  

What remains in force

• Prospective removal of “waqf-by-user”.
  
• Application of the Limitation Act to waqf property litigation.
  
• Repeal of some older overriding provisions.

Mains practice

Do the 2025 waqf amendments strike the right balance between property-law clarity and protection of minority institutions? Discuss with reference to the Supreme Court’s interim order

Hints: legislative aims → what the Court paused and why → constitutional angles (equality, religious autonomy, property and due process) → benefits of title clarity and limitation → risks of administrative overreach → your reform package.

Prelims Question

Statement: Under the Supreme Court’s interim order, waqf entities cannot be dispossessed and land records cannot be altered until the Waqf Tribunal decides title (subject to appeal).
Answer: True.

One-line wrap

The Court let reform move ahead, but put brakes on steps that bypass due process—balancing clarity in land records with protection of minority institutions.