Explained: What SC's Waqf Act interim order changes on the ground

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s September 15 interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, keeps the law broadly in force while pausing the most contentious innovations. 

The bench reiterated the strong presumption that a parliamentary statute is constitutional and declined a blanket stay, yet it suspended specific clauses that, in its view, risk arbitrary application or encroach on judicial functions.

In short, most reforms continue, but key levers that would have shifted power toward the executive are on hold pending final adjudication.

No stay on the entire Act

The Court underscored that a duly enacted law is presumed constitutional and that staying an entire statute is an exceptional remedy. 

In practical terms, the Act remains operative except where the bench has issued targeted stays or directions. This preserves the legislative framework as the default while the constitutional challenge proceeds on the merits.

Mandatory waqf registration continues

The amendment’s push to register and digitise waqf properties remains untouched. Registration has long existed in earlier waqf laws; the Court saw no reason to interrupt this transparency measure. Boards must proceed with filings and database updates as intended by the amendment.

Inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council stands, subject to caps

The Court did not strike the secular-composition change. It allowed non-Muslim inclusion but imposed interim ceilings: no more than three non-Muslim members on any State Waqf Board and no more than four on the Central Waqf Council. 

The ex-officio CEO may be a non-Muslim, but the Court directed that, as far as possible, the CEO should be Muslim. The message: inclusion is permissible; domination is not.

The immediate effect of the provisions stayed by SC

The five-year “practising Islam” requirement to create a waqf is stayed.

The clause requiring a dedicator to have practised Islam for at least five years is suspended. The bench flagged arbitrariness absent a clear, fair mechanism to determine compliance. Until robust rules exist, or the Court finally decides, this eligibility filter cannot be applied. Practically, the pre-amendment position governs: a Muslim can dedicate property to waqf without the new duration qualifier.

Executive denotification via District Collectors is stayed

The new pathway allowing a designated officer (typically the District Collector) to decide whether waqf land is actually government land, and to trigger de-recognition and record changes, has been frozen. 

The Court held that an executive officer cannot adjudicate citizens’ property rights in this manner. Title and encroachment disputes must go to Waqf Tribunals or courts. No third-party rights are to be created on disputed properties in the interim, and existing entries cannot be altered by executive fiat pending adjudication.

What this does to the Act’s legal footing

The interim order preserves the Act’s overall validity while signalling constitutional doubts about (a) a religious-practice qualifier that lacks due process scaffolding and (b) executive adjudication of title that displaces judicial forums. 

By crafting stays rather than wholesale invalidation, the Court keeps the legislative architecture intact but neutralises features that, on their face, raise equality, due process, or separation-of-powers concerns. 

The government can keep implementing non-controversial reforms; the stayed provisions are dormant unless and until cured or upheld after full hearing.

How administrative functioning shifts on the ground

Board composition and leadership

States may proceed to reconstitute Boards and the Central Council with the amendment’s expanded representation (women, cross-sect members, professionals), but they must observe the Court’s caps on non-Muslim membership. CEOs can be non-Muslim, yet administrations are expected, “as far as possible”, to appoint Muslims to that role. 

The net effect is a more diverse but still majority-Muslim governance structure.

Government authority over property disputes

The most significant power shift sought by the amendment, the Collector-led route to undo waqf status, cannot operate for now. Encroachment and title disputes return to the tribunal/court track. 

Revenue records and Board registers aren’t to be corrected on an officer’s say-so; no third-party rights can be created over contested parcels pending judicial finality. 

This restores the pre-amendment balance between executive administration and judicial adjudication in property matters.

Operational continuity for Boards

With registration moving ahead and executive denotification paused, Boards can continue routine management: rent collection, maintenance, and ongoing administration proceed under the 1995 framework as modified by the non-stayed portions of the 2025 Act. The immediate risk of abrupt executive action against waqf titles is contained.

How the ground reality has moved

Before the amendment (1995 regime):

No duration-of-faith filter to create a waqf. Waqf-by-user recognised under long-standing practice (subject to challenge). Boards were exclusively Muslim in composition. Encroachments and title disputes were for tribunals/courts; executive officers did not unilaterally extinguish waqf entries.

After the amendment’s passage (on paper):

A five-year practising-Islam criterion for new dedications. Expanded Boards and Council with women, cross-sect representation, and non-Muslim professionals. District Collectors empowered to inquire and trigger de-recognition if land was found to be government property. Registration and digitisation mandated. Additional filters relating to protected monuments and tribal lands introduced.

After the Supreme Court’s interim order (in practice, now):

The five-year criterion is inoperative absent fair rules. Collector-led denotification cannot proceed; property rights revert to judicial determination, with a bar on creating third-party interests pending finality. Registration continues.

Boards and the Council expand but within judicially imposed caps on non-Muslim membership; CEOs may be non-Muslim, with a preference for Muslim appointees. In short, transparency and representation reforms move ahead; executive short-cuts over title do not.

What remains pending or unaffected for now

Several amendment-era features that did not attract an explicit stay continue by default, including the registration drive and provisions aligned with heritage and tribal-land protections. 

Other contested themes (such as the future of “waqf by user”) await fuller arguments and a reasoned judgment. 

How does the interim order translate into victory or loss for stakeholders

While the government did keep the Act alive, the apex court clipped the Act’s sharpest tools. It paused the five-year “practising Islam” filter for creating a waqf, and it froze the collector-led route to denotify waqf land. Those are the very levers that would have shifted power toward the executive. That’s substantive relief for the petitioners.

Even where the government “won” on board composition, the Court added guardrails: caps on non-Muslim members and a “as far as possible” preference for a Muslim CEO. So inclusion stands, but with limits.

Net-net, the legal presumption favours the Act staying on the books (good for the government), but the operational reality is that the most controversial, high-impact provisions can’t be used right now (good for the challengers). It’s not an overall win for the government; it’s an interim draw with meaningful restraints, for now.