The Supreme Court of India did not ban the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, but has made a legal amendment in some of its provisions or has completely banned them. Therefore, it is very important to understand the meaning of the Supreme Amendment in the Waqf Amendment Act. People hope that this latest decision of the court will remove the apprehensions which were being expressed before this new law. Since this decision of the court is in line with the constitution, both sides have accepted it. This is an auspicious sign.
It is said that the amendments made by the Supreme Court are important and necessary, as they have also taken care of the sentiments of the Constitution. Therefore, its changed meaning is important in terms of national unity.
Also read: The message of balance and constitutionality is hidden in the interim decision of Supreme Court on WAQF Amendment Bill
Therefore, the main effects of this decision are:-
First, the court has stayed the provision in which a person was required to be a follower of Islam for 5 years to make Waqf. However, this restriction will remain in force until the state governments make separate rules for this. Since this condition could have been arbitrary, the court has postponed it. It is believed that the provision of being a follower of Islam for a minimum of 5 years to Waqf will be stopped until the state governments make rules for its verification. Since religion is a personal matter in the country and it is not necessary that a citizen performs his religious identity publicly. Therefore, it is very complex to decide when someone is accepting any religion. The state governments are expected to take care of all aspects and take more sensitivity while making rules in this regard.
Second, the court has also decided that the District Collector does not have the right to give a decision whether there is any property Waqf or not, unless the Waqf Tribunal or Court takes a final decision. This has limited the power of the collector and has a ban on arbitrariness. This is an important amendment, as the apex court has completely banned the provisions of Waqf property investigation. It has also made it clear that no property can be considered non-confession only on the basis of a partial report of the designated officer. It is believed that the court has considered the power to decide the property rights to the District Magistrate against the principle of separation of the system power made in the Constitution. This arrangement has been made so that the balance of power between the three important parts of democracy- legislature, judiciary and executive. A slight inclination of the pan on one side will spoil the balance of the system.
Third, amendment in the number of members in the Waqf Board and the limit of non-Muslim members has also been secured to some extent, but the court has adjourned some provisions. Therefore, people hope that now their government will bring similar laws for other religions and decide to comply with it.
Fourth, the court has temporarily postponed some provisions to prevent the ‘arbitrary’ use of power, including issues such as registration of Waqf properties and religion rearing of the elderly. It is noteworthy that the opposition had a deep objection to many points of the Waqf Amendment Act. There was a lot of uproar in both houses and on the road. Given the seriousness and impact of this case, the decision of the Supreme Court is responsible.
Although the petition filed in this regard demanded the cancellation of the entire law, but the apex court did not accept it. Such steps are taken in extremely rare cases and their effects are very wide. If seen, in this sense the Supreme Court used judicial discretion, and also took care that there should be no encroachment of boundaries with the legislature. Therefore, he has wisely drawn the middle way. Overall, the Supreme Court has taken a very balanced view in this sensitive case.
Truth is to be told, this decision of the court indicates towards making a balanced view in the Waqf Act more justified and constitutional. Along with this, efforts have also been made to balance government powers and personal rights. Some rules and provisions related to this decision of the court will not apply until more clear rules and instructions in this regard are made.
It is clear in this way that the Supreme Court has banned some provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act, while the entire law has not been completely banned. By doing this, on the one hand, while adopting a balanced attitude, he has tried to balance the power, while on the other hand, he has also understood the need for additional sensitivity, giving a verdict on Waqf law. This is the reason that another responsible decision has come out in relatively controversial cases, which has breathed a sigh of relief.
– Kamlesh Pandey
Senior journalist and political analyst
(The author has his own views in this article.)