Supreme Court partially stays Waqf (Amendment) Act, Caps Non-Muslim Board Members at Three and puts 5-Year Islam practice rule on hold

The top court refused to stay the entire law, stating that such a move is reserved only for the rarest of cases, thereby allowing most of the Act to remain in force. However, the Court put a stay on three key provisions considered contentious.

The Court ruled that out of the total 11 members on Waqf Boards, a maximum of three can be non-Muslims, and similarly, in state Waqf boards, the number of non-Muslim members should not exceed three. While non-Muslims can be appointed as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Waqf Boards, the Court recommended that, as far as possible, CEOs should be Muslims.

A major provision stayed by the Court is the clause requiring a person to have practised Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf. This provision will remain suspended until state governments frame rules to determine the criteria for being a follower of Islam, as the Court found the clause could lead to arbitrary decisions.

Additionally, the Court stayed the provision allowing government-appointed officers, specifically District Collectors, to decide disputes related to whether Waqf properties encroached on government land. The Court held this to violate the separation of powers, ruling that property rights and disputes should be adjudicated by proper tribunals or courts, not executive officers.

These decisions came after extensive hearings from petitioners including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi and others, and defence by the Centre led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Petitioners argued the law infringed on rights of Muslims and religious institutions, whereas the government cited the need for transparency and accountability in Waqf property management.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act was passed in April 2025 with significant parliamentary debate and opposition. The Supreme Court's interim verdict balances allowing the Act to function while protecting against potentially unconstitutional provisions. The Court continues to hear the larger constitutional validity challenge.