The Muslim organization Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind has welcomed the interim decision by the Supreme Court on three controversial sections of the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2025. The organization's president, Maulana Arshad Madani, stated that this decision strengthens the hope for justice. He noted that while the Supreme Court refused to completely annul the law, it did suspend some dangerous provisions. The Jamiat leader announced their continued legal battle until this 'dark law' is entirely repealed.
The constitutional validity of the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2025 was challenged in the Supreme Court by various organizations and individual petitioners. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih's bench issued an interim order on September 14. The Supreme Court stated that certain sections of the new law cannot be currently enforced.
Read Also: Wakf Law Gets the Green Light, Non-Muslim CEO's, Collector's Power Curbed... Which Arguments Did SC Uphold?
Section 3(R):
This clause requires a person to be a follower of Islam for at least five years to establish a wakf. The court said this requirement might be arbitrary while rules are yet undefined and has put a halt on enforcing a five-year limit.
Subsection of Section 2(C):
Until the designated officer submits their report, the property should not be considered wakf property. The court suspended this provision.
Section 3(C):
Allowing the Collector to determine property rights violates the separation of powers. Until a final decision, property rights will remain unaffected, and wakf possession will not be denied.
Limit on Non-Muslim Members:
There should not be more than three non-Muslim members on the wakf board, and the total number should not exceed four. Moreover, under Section 23, the Supreme Court stated that, where possible, the CEO of the wakf board should be Muslim.
The Supreme Court ordered that the number of non-Muslim members in the Central Wakf Council should not exceed four, and no more than three in state wakf boards. Emphasis was placed on prioritizing a Muslim as the CEO, although the appointment of a non-Muslim CEO is not prohibited. The requirement for registering wakf properties was deemed outdated and was dropped. The court instructed that no property should be transferred until the dispute is resolved.
Read Also: Why Are All Parties Pleased with the Supreme Court's Interim Decision on Wakf?
Maulana Madani stated, 'The government attempted to attack Muslim religious rights by amending the Wakf law. Now, the Collector's authority to make decisions on wakf disputes has been nullified.' He expressed hope that the final verdict would annul the entire law. Other organizations, such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, also welcomed the decision.
The government claimed these changes were for transparency, but the petitioners described them as discriminatory. CJI Justice Gavai remarked that a complete halt to a comprehensive law could only be ordered in the 'Rarest of Rare' situations. The bench asserted that the presumption always favors the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. Judicial intervention occurs only in the rarest of cases. The Supreme Court did not deem the Wakf Act unconstitutional and postponed the hearing to May 20, 2026.
