Editorial 1: Letter and spirit

Context

The Supreme Court wisely chose to both stay and uphold different provisions of the Waqf Act.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in its September 15, 2025 judgment on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, struck a balance between religious autonomy and state regulation. By staying certain provisions while upholding others, the Court ensured both constitutional validity and protection against arbitrary interference, leaving scope for further political consensus and community confidence-building.

Supreme Court’s Judgment on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• Delivered on September 15, 2025, concerning amendments to the 1995 Waqf Act.
• Court chose a middle path:
  • Stayed some controversial provisions, but
  • Refused to freeze the entire Act.
• Both supporters and critics of the Act claimed victory.

Government’s and Critics’ Views

• Government’s stance: Amendments necessary to curb misuse and corruption in waqf administration.
• Critics (including Congress): Viewed as arbitrary interference in Muslim community affairs.

Provisions Stayed by the Court

• Requirement that only Muslims practising for five years can create waqf.
• Power of District Collectors to adjudicate waqf property disputes.
• Cap introduced on non-Muslim representation:
  • Central Waqf Council: Maximum of 4 non-Muslim members (earlier up to 12).
  • State Waqf Boards: Maximum of 3 non-Muslim members (earlier up to 7).
• Direction: CEOs of Waqf Boards should preferably be Muslims.

Provisions Upheld by the Court

• Removal of waqf-by-user recognition considered valid.
  • Exception: Properties already registered under this claim till April 8, 2025 remain protected.
• Restrictions on granting waqf status to protected monuments and tribal lands upheld as constitutionally valid.

Broader Implications

1. Religious Autonomy vs State Regulation

• Need for balance between community self-governance and state oversight.
• Autonomy cannot shield misuse of resources by community leaders.
• Equally, faith cannot justify claims over public resources.

2. Role of the State

• State has the right and duty to protect people from exploitation.
• Problem arises when principles are applied selectively across religions.

3. Constitutional Philosophy

• Court applied the presumption of constitutionality for laws passed by Parliament.
• Warned against partisan politics, which could weaken democracy.

4. Need for Consensus

• Government should negotiate with the Opposition to broaden acceptance of laws.
• Laws impacting particular communities should involve consultation and confidence-building.
• Complete consensus may not be possible, but efforts must be made in that direction.

Conclusion

The verdict reflects the Court’s emphasis on presumption of constitutionality, while highlighting the dangers of partisan politics in sensitive matters of faith and governance. For long-term stability, the government must engage with the Opposition and affected communities, ensuring laws command the widest acceptance. Building trust and consensus remains the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.