New Delhi — The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed several controversial provisions of the amended Waqf law, citing concerns over arbitrary powers and constitutional rights. The bench, headed by the Chief Justice and accompanied by Justice AG Masih, paused rules that require donors to be “practicing Muslims” for five years, allow non-Muslims to serve on Waqf boards, and grant District Collectors sweeping authority over Waqf property decisions.
The court ruled these provisions could lead to misuse, especially in adjudicating ownership of property and imposing religious tests. It emphasized that determining rights over property should not fall to officers like District Collectors, seeing that as an overreach of executive power and a breach of separation of powers.
However, not all amended sections were stayed. The requirement for registration of Waqf properties remains in force. The court observed that this registration requirement existed before the latest amendments, though it was poorly enforced, and thus not “new.”
One of the contentious clauses, known as “waqf by user,” pertains to properties claimed as Waqf based on long usage rather than formal documentation. Opponents of the law argued that without historic deeds, many longstanding practices would be invalidated. Legal counsel for petitioners argued that demanding written proof for centuries-old religious or charitable endowments is unreasonable. The court, while acknowledging potential abuse, also recognized that some of these “by user” claims are genuine and needed legal protection.
Another disputed change concerned the inclusion of non-Muslim members on state and federal Waqf boards. Petitioners argued that this could upset the balance of religious representation and dilute Muslim control. The government defended the amendment, saying that inclusion of diverse members would bring better oversight and is secular in nature.
The rule making a donor qualify as a “practicing Muslim” for five years before their contribution can be accepted was also stayed completely. Petitioners contended that the requirement violated secular provisions and religious freedom under the Constitution. Senior advocates argued that such a religious test is unprecedented and discriminatory.
In its interim order, the court instructed that there should be no changes to the status of disputed Waqf properties without proper adjudication through established Waqf tribunals and that decisions can be challenged in high courts. This ensures protection for existing claims until the larger case over the constitutional validity of the amendments is decided.