Case Name: In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Original Jurisdiction)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1116
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
Appellant: Writ Petitioners (multiple)
Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 15 September 2025
Introduction
A batch of writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court of India in its civil original jurisdiction challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act of 1995. The petitioners, represented by senior advocates including Kapil Sibal and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, contended that several provisions of the Amendment Act violated fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India, as well as the right to property under Article 300A. The principal provisions impugned were: the deletion of the concept of “Waqf by User” under Section 3(r); the exclusion of government properties from waqf claims under Section 3C; amendments to the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards permitting the inclusion of non-Muslim members under Sections 9 and 14; the mandatory registration requirement with penal consequences under Section 36(10); the restriction on waqf creation by non-Muslims under Section 104; and the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to waqf property disputes under Section 107. The judgment engages the intersection of minority religious rights, property law, and constitutional limits on legislative power.
Summary of Facts
Waqf is a permanent dedication of property by a Muslim for purposes recognised as religious, pious, or charitable under Islamic law. The Waqf Act, as it stood before the 2025 amendments, recognised “Waqf by User”, namely a waqf constituted not by a formal deed of dedication but by immemorial use of property for religious or pious purposes. Numerous waqf properties across India, including mosques, dargahs, and graveyards, had historically been recognised as waqf by user without formal instruments of dedication.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 introduced significant changes to this framework. The concept of Waqf by User was abolished under Section 3(r), with the deletion being stated to be prospective. Government properties were expressly excluded from being claimed as waqf under the new Section 3C. The composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards was modified to permit the inclusion of non-Muslim members. Compulsory registration of waqf properties was introduced under Section 36(10), with failure to register resulting in the loss of legal standing to initiate proceedings. Non-Muslims were prohibited from creating waqf under Section 104. The Limitation Act, 1963 was made applicable to suits relating to waqf property under Section 107.
The petitioners contended that these amendments collectively amounted to an assault on the constitutional protections afforded to the Muslim minority under Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30, and that the deletion of Waqf by User would retrospectively invalidate countless waqf properties established over centuries. The Union of India defended the amendments as measures necessary to prevent the abuse of waqf law for the encroachment upon government lands and to bring greater accountability and transparency to the administration of waqf properties.
Issues Before the Court
1. Whether the abolition of “Waqf by User” under Section 3(r) of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is constitutionally valid and, if so, whether it can be applied prospectively so as to protect existing waqfs established by user.
2. Whether the exclusion of government properties from waqf claims under Section 3C is constitutionally valid.
3. Whether the mandatory registration requirement under Section 36(10), with its consequences for non-registration, violates the fundamental rights of waqf institutions.
4. Whether the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards under Sections 9 and 14 infringes the rights of the Muslim community under Articles 25, 26, and 29.
5. Whether the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to waqf property disputes under Section 107 curtails the religious freedoms of Muslim institutions.
Arguments Given by Both Parties
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant
The petitioners submitted that the abolition of Waqf by User would, notwithstanding its prospective framing, have the practical effect of placing in jeopardy numerous existing waqf properties that had been constituted and recognised by immemorial use over generations. The permitting of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards, they argued, violated the right of the Muslim community to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26 and constituted impermissible state interference in the internal governance of a religious denomination. The compulsory registration requirement was challenged as potentially extinguishing legitimate waqf properties through procedural non-compliance, in violation of Articles 25 and 26. The restriction on waqf creation by non-Muslims and the application of the Limitation Act were also challenged as discriminatory and as curtailing the religious freedoms of the Muslim community.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents
The Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the amendments were a necessary response to widespread abuse of waqf law, including the registration of government lands as waqf without any valid basis, causing enormous prejudice to the public interest. Reliance was placed on decisions including State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. Waqf Board and Viceroy Hotels Ltd. v. Telangana State Waqf Board. The inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards was defended as a governance reform to ensure transparency and accountability in the administration of vast waqf assets. The mandatory registration requirement was characterised as a procedural safeguard that had been a feature of waqf legislation since 1923.
Reasonings and Findings
The Supreme Court upheld the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 with limited modifications to protect the rights of the Muslim community in respect of the composition of Waqf Boards. The Court held that the abolition of the concept of Waqf by User under Section 3(r) was constitutionally valid, observing that the provision had been misused to claim government lands as waqf without genuine historical basis. The Court directed, however, that the abolition operate only prospectively and that waqf properties already validly registered under the earlier law continue to be recognised as waqf.
On the exclusion of government properties under Section 3C, the Court upheld the provision, holding that government lands held in public trust on behalf of citizens cannot be claimed as waqf and that the exclusion was a legitimate legislative measure to protect the public interest. On the mandatory registration requirement, the Court upheld Section 36(10) as a legitimate transparency and accountability measure consistent with the history of waqf legislation since 1923.
On the inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards, the Court struck a balance between the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring transparent administration and the Muslim community’s right to manage its own religious institutions. The Court held that non-Muslim representation must be restricted to a maximum of four members in the Central Waqf Council out of twenty-two, and three members in State Waqf Boards out of eleven. It further directed that the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board should, to the maximum extent possible, be a person of the Muslim faith. The application of the Limitation Act was upheld as consistent with analogous trust legislation.
Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India upheld the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as broadly constitutional, with directions limiting non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards to a maximum of four members in the Central Council and three in State Boards. The abolition of Waqf by User was held valid but confined to prospective operation. The exclusion of government properties, the mandatory registration requirement, and the application of the Limitation Act were all upheld. The preferred appointment of Muslim persons as Chief Executive Officers of Waqf Boards was directed.
The judgment reflects the Court’s effort to balance the legitimate governmental interest in reform of waqf administration with the constitutional protections of the Muslim minority under Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution of India. It establishes that the State may regulate religious endowments for purposes of transparency and accountability but must do so within the limits prescribed by the fundamental rights of the relevant religious community.
Frequently Asked Questions (F&Q)
Q1: What is “Waqf by User” and why was it abolished?
“Waqf by User” refers to the constitution of a waqf by the continuous and immemorial use of property for religious, pious, or charitable purposes recognised under Islamic law, without any formal deed of dedication. Mosques, dargahs, graveyards, and similar religious sites established over centuries without formal documentation had historically been recognised as waqf by user. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 abolished this concept on the ground that it had been misused to claim government lands as waqf without genuine historical or legal basis. The Supreme Court upheld the abolition but directed it to operate prospectively, protecting already registered waqf properties.
Q2: Can non-Muslims be appointed as members of State Waqf Boards?
The Supreme Court held that non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards must be strictly limited in order to preserve the Muslim community’s right to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution. The Court directed that the Central Waqf Council may include a maximum of four non-Muslim members out of twenty-two total members, and State Waqf Boards may include a maximum of three non-Muslim members out of eleven. The Court also directed that the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board should, to the maximum extent possible, be a person of the Muslim faith.
Q3: What is the significance of Article 26 of the Constitution in the context of waqf administration?
Article 26 of the Constitution of India guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, including the right to administer property held for religious or charitable purposes. In the context of waqf, Article 26 protects the right of the Muslim community to administer waqf institutions, which are inherently religious in character, without undue state interference. The Supreme Court’s limitation of non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards reflects the constitutional imperative to preserve this right while permitting proportionate legislative regulation for purposes of accountability and transparency.
Q4: Does the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to waqf property disputes violate religious freedom?
The Supreme Court upheld the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to waqf property disputes under Section 107 of the amended Act, holding that this was consistent with the treatment of analogous forms of trust and religious endowment property under general law. The Court found no violation of religious freedom in the application of general limitation law to disputes concerning waqf property. The application of limitation law to waqf disputes does not interfere with the religious practices of the Muslim community; it merely regulates the procedural framework within which claims to waqf property may be litigated.
Q5: What is the constitutional basis for the State’s power to regulate waqf institutions?
The legislative power of Parliament to enact laws relating to waqf derives from Entry 10 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which covers trusts and trustees, and from Entry 28 of the Concurrent List, which covers charities and charitable institutions. The state’s power to regulate religious endowments is also recognised by Article 25(2), which permits the State to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus, and by the broader principle that the secular aspects of the administration of religious endowments, as distinct from matters of religious doctrine and practice, are subject to legislative regulation.
