WAQF ACT INTERIM ORDER ON 15 SEP 2025 – A TIGHT SLAP IN WHOSE FACE, ANYWAY?

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025—like any legislation—may carry constitutional infirmities in some provisions. The Supreme Court’s interim order of 15 September 2025 flagged precisely that. Yet the real contrast lies not only in the law itself but in the difference between transparency and accountability.

For four months, Bharat heard more of political thunder than of legal text: opposition politics with loud volume, shrill pitch and singular pith; constitutional bodies speaking instead with measured tone, balanced pitch and constitutional discipline.

Street Politics vs Courtroom Arguments

Nearly 100 petitions before the Supreme Court invoked Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 300-A. Outside, Opposition leaders amplified fear, portraying the Act as religious persecution.

Key themes:

Religious assault – casting the Act as “selective targeting of Muslims.”

Threat to peace – warnings of bloodshed, street protests and unrest if the law continued.

Existential danger – likening Bharat’s trajectory to unstable neighbours.

Minority isolation – alleging an attack on community identity rather than on property regulation.

From J&K to Kerala came slogans of “We will come to the streets; we will shed blood”—emotional mobilisation and fear-inducing imagery built on prejudiced misinterpretation.

The Court, by contrast, responded with restraint, responsibility and reflection.

Historical Perspective

The term waqf does not appear in the Qur’an, though ideals of charity and permanent dedication of property find indirect support in Qur’anic injunctions and Hadith.

In India, the practice arrived with the Delhi Sultanate, flourished under the Mughals and funded mosques, madrasas and social welfare.

Statutory Milestones

 Waqf Act, 1954 :First uniform framework; weak enforcement and dispute resolution.

 Waqf Act, 1995 :Created State Waqf Boards, Central Waqf Council, surveys, tribunals.

Waqf  Act, 2013 :Amendment Stronger penalties, digitisation, wider tribunal powers.

Waqf Act ,2025 : Amendment Abolished “Waqf by User,” repealed Section 40, mandated CAG audit, allowed limited non-Muslim membership, required five-year Islamic practice before creating waqf, gave Collectors encroachment powers, capped non-Muslim members in Boards.

Notable flashpoints—the Taj Mahal waqf claim (2022), Burhanpur Fort dispute (2023) and the Sachar Report (2006) on massive encroachment and misuse—formed the political backdrop.

Petitioners’ Prayers

Minority organisations, mutawallis and individuals sought:

Declaration of unconstitutionality of provisions violating Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300-A.

Interim suspension of:

the five-year Islam practice requirement,

the Collector’s adjudicatory power,

the cap on non-Muslim Board members.

The Supreme Court’s Interim Order (15 Sep 2025)

Pending final adjudication, the Court stayed:

Five-year Islam practice clause – prima facie arbitrary.

Collector’s encroachment power – adjudication is a judicial function.

Cap on non-Muslim members – prima facie discriminatory.

Status quo was ordered for all registered waqf properties: no alteration or de-notification without the Court’s leave. Crucially, the Act as a whole remains operative, preserving the presumption of constitutionality.

Political Alarmism vs Judicial Restraint

The Opposition claimed victory, calling the stay a “tight slap on the government.” The government countered that the law stands and only a few clauses are paused—a “tight slap on fear-mongering.”

In reality, the order is a slap on political theatre itself, reminding both sides that:

laws must meet constitutional standards, and

public debate must remain rational and restrained.

Conclusion

The Waqf saga shows how religious endowments can be weaponised as political capital, where fear psychosis rather than statutory fine print drives mobilisation.

The Supreme Court’s calibrated stay acts as a constitutional speed-breaker—checking governmental overreach and opposition scaremongering alike, and re-centring the conversation on rule of law, accountability and constitutional balance.

Dr (Lt Col) Atul Tyagi

Practicing Advocate & Faculty in Practice

Atultyagi100@gmail.com, 9540652090