The Supreme Court, in its interim order given on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, has once again reiterated the tradition of the Indian judiciary in which the perception of the law made by the Parliament is constitutionally valid is paramount. The court refused to ban the entire law, but a message was made by temporary prohibition on some major provisions that it is necessary to maintain a balance between the law -making process and civil rights.
The court clarified that the number of non-Muslim members in Waqf councils and boards should be limited. The Central Waqf Parishad should not have more than four non-Muslim members and a similar limit should be applicable at the state level. If seen, this decision is important towards maintaining the character of a sensitive religious institution. However, the Supreme Court also admitted that it is not completely unconstitutional to make non-Muslim CEO from administratively, but “as far as possible” Muslim CEO should be appointed.
Also read this: Yes Milord: How did Election Commission get stuck on base? What historic decision did Supreme Court give on Bihar SIR
At the same time, the Supreme Court stayed the provision under which the government could deykognaise Waqf property during a land dispute. This provision was considered against the principle of ‘Separation of Powers’ (separation of powers). The court clarified that the right to property and ownership of property is only with tribunals and courts, not the executive. At the same time, it was also directed that until the final settlement of the dispute is not settled, no third party rights should be formed on the Waqf land.
Let us tell you that a bench of Chief Justice BR Gawai underlined a basic principle in this order – the laws of Parliament should be considered ‘prima factor’ valid and they should be stopped only under extraordinary circumstances. This idea in democracy establishes the supremacy of Parliament and monitoring of the judiciary – both.
If seen, this order is not limited to Waqf law only. It is part of the broader discourse that has questions of management of religious institutions, minority rights and constitutional balance. In a multi -religious and multicultural society like India, making laws is not just a process, but also a sensitive effort of social harmony.
If we look at the verdict, this decision of the Supreme Court neither completely denies the autonomy of Waqf boards nor gives unlimited rights to the government. It is a constitutional safeguard, which ensures that the law made by Parliament meet the test of justice. Whatever decision comes in the final hearing will not only affect the future of Waqf institutions, but will also decide how to balance between religious properties and constitutional rights in India.
– Neeraj Kumar Dubey
(The author has his own views in this article.)