SC rules on Waqf Act: CEO must be muslim

The Supreme Court has issued an interim order on the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, providing a partial but significant stay on the new law. While the court has declined to suspend the entire act, it has put on hold three specific provisions that were challenged in over 100 petitions.

The first major provision to be stayed is the rule that required a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf. The court noted that without clear guidelines from state governments to determine such eligibility, this provision could be "arbitrary." The suspension will remain in place until these rules are established.

The court also stayed a provision that allowed a government-designated officer, such as a Collector, to decide whether a property declared as Waqf was government-owned. The Supreme Court stated that this violated the principle of "separation of powers" and that an executive officer should not be permitted to adjudicate on citizens' rights. The court clarified that until a final decision is reached by a tribunal or a court, the disputed Waqf land cannot be disposed of or have third-party rights created on it.

A third provision was stayed as well, which said that a Waqf property would not be treated as such until a report from an officer was submitted.

In addition to these stays, the court made key observations regarding the composition of Waqf boards. It directed that the number of non-Muslim members in state Waqf boards cannot exceed three and that the total number of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council cannot be more than four. While the court did not stay the provision allowing a non-Muslim to serve as CEO of a state Waqf Board, it did say that a Muslim should be appointed "as far as possible."

The Supreme Court's decision comes after extensive hearings and represents a partial victory for the petitioners, who argued that the amended act was a "complete departure from historical legal and constitutional principles." The government, for its part, had defended the legislation, arguing that it was a necessary step to address mismanagement and encroachment on Waqf properties