Letter and spirit: on Supreme Court and Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 judgment Politics & News

The Supreme Court of India walked a tightrope in its judgment delivered on September 15, on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended the 1995 Waqf Act to regulate Muslim religious endowments, including vast land holdings across India. The Court put several controversial provisions on hold but refused to freeze the entire Act on grounds of constitutionality and other concerns. This turned out to be a rare instance where supporters and critics of the Act claimed vindication for their respective positions in the Court’s order. The government views the amendments as necessary to curb the alleged misuse and corruption under the earlier Waqf Act, while critics, including the Congress, see it as arbitrary interference in the affairs of the Muslim community. The Court has now stayed the requirement that only Muslims practising for five years can create waqf, and the power vested in District Collectors to adjudicate waqf property disputes. It also capped non-Muslim members to four in the Central Waqf Council and three in State Boards, down from potentially 12 and seven, respectively. The Court also directed that CEOs of Waqf Boards should preferably be Muslims. The removal of the provision for waqf-by-user recognition in the amended law has been upheld as valid by the Court, with the caveat that waqf properties registered as on April 8, 2025, under such a claim remain protected. Restrictions on waqf status for protected monuments and tribal lands were deemed constitutionally valid.

While the order diffuses the conflict for now, the larger question of balancing religious autonomy and state regulation continues — and that is better tackled through building consensus within and between communities. Autonomy claims cannot be a facade for misuse of community resources by its own leaders; nor can any group of people lay claim over public resources in the name of faith. The state has not only the right but also the responsibility to ensure that people are not taken for a ride by anyone. The trouble arises when the state discriminates between religious groups in the application of this principle. The Court rightly went with the philosophy of presumption of constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament. But partisan politics of an extreme nature can delegitimise representational democracy. The government must consciously negotiate with the Opposition in Parliament to ensure that the laws enacted have the widest political and social acceptance. When laws affecting particular communities are made, they should be taken into confidence. None of this is easy, and complete consensus is never possible, but attempts should be made in that direction.