Waqf Stalemate

The Supreme Court’s interim order staying several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, marks another chapter in a familiar drama wherein reform attempts are obstructed under the pretext of protecting minority rights. The legislation, passed by Parliament in April, was a carefully crafted effort by the Centre to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the management of Waqf properties, religious endowments intended to serve Muslim charitable and religious purposes. Yet political posturing and a convenient narrative of minority ‘appeasement’ have clouded the debate, leaving reform in limbo.

The interim order stayed three particularly significant provisions. First, it halted the government’s move to empower district collectors to verify the authenticity of properties claimed as Waqf. Second, it capped the number of non-Muslims on Waqf boards. Third, it suspended the condition that a person must demonstrate five years of practising Islam to establish a Waqf.

For decades, Waqf administration in India has been mired in inefficiency and murkiness. According to official estimates, Waqf properties worth thousands of crores have been subject to encroachment or illegal leasing, often under the cover of bureaucratic lethargy or political influence. The 1995 Waqf Act did little to address these challenges.

The Centre’s 2025 amendments were a welcome attempt to change that. Empowering district collectors to initiate inquiries into suspected fake Waqf properties introduced an administrative layer of accountability, designed not to dispossess legitimate holders but to prevent fraudulent claims. By requiring a demonstrable history of practising Islam, the law sought to ensure that Waqfs remained tied to genuine religious and charitable intent. The provision for non-Muslim participation on Waqf boards aimed to improve governance by encouraging plural oversight.

Yet the Opposition, driven less by principled defence of minority rights and more by political opportunism, has seized upon these reforms as an attack on the Muslim community’s autonomy. Parties like AIMIM, TMC and the RJD have loudly contested the Act, framing it as an overreach of majoritarian intent rather than a long-overdue effort to clean up a system ripe for exploitation. Their strategy is tailored to energise vote banks, rather than address the systemic rot afflicting Waqf management.

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay these provisions does not simplify the matter. It effectively preserves the status quo of opacity and misuse. The notion that district collectors cannot even begin inquiries without risking the invalidation of Waqf status invites further abuse. Meanwhile, suspending the ‘five-year practice rule’ delays the establishment of basic safeguards against transient or opportunistic Waqf creation.

The government’s intention was neither illiberal nor heavy-handed. It was an attempt to preserve the community’s religious rights while instituting much-needed mechanisms to prevent fraud and mismanagement.

The SC’s interim order, though careful in its language, inadvertently stalls progress toward a more transparent, accountable framework.