The SC’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act has struck a careful balance — putting on hold the contentious provisions while keeping the law intact
The religious issues are most tricky to resolve, especially when the Government is directly involved in dealing with it and the issue concerns a religious minority. Though it is debatable whether Waqf is a religious issue or not, the community feels it that way, so it becomes an emotive issue and so needs to be treaded carefully. The Supreme Court has just done that in the case of the Waqf (Amendment) Act by giving time to both parties to reach an amicable solution by staying the controversial provisions while keeping the Act intact. The Supreme Court’s interim order on the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act offers both relief and restraint, striking a careful balance in a highly polarised debate.
By staying key provisions of the law while allowing the rest of the statute to operate, the Court has ensured that constitutional questions are examined with due seriousness, without suspending the entire legislative framework. At the heart of the dispute lies the management of Waqf properties — endowments made by Muslims for religious, charitable, or community purposes. India has one of the largest Waqf estates in the world, comprising lakhs of acres of land and thousands of institutions.
Over decades, these properties have been mired in allegations of encroachment, mismanagement, and opaque governance. The 1995 Waqf Act sought to streamline administration through Waqf Boards, but successive Governments have found themselves grappling with disputes, overlapping claims, and lack of accountability. The latest round of amendments, cleared by Parliament in April, was projected as a measure to resolve these disputes and enhance oversight. Yet, the changes sparked widespread protests. Muslim organisations argued that the provisions could lead to arbitrary state interference. Chief among the concerns was the extraordinary power vested in district Collectors to adjudicate Waqf property disputes. The new law made the Collector’s report decisive in determining whether a property could be registered as Waqf. The Supreme Court has now said that “the Collector cannot be permitted to adjudicate the rights of citizens” and that such disputes must remain within the purview of competent tribunals. It has also capped the number of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. Though both parties have declared that their stand is vindicated, the ruling is neither a final endorsement of one side nor a defeat of the other. It is an interim relief for both. But the deeper challenge remains unresolved. The governance of Waqf properties — sprawling, contested, and often mismanaged — demands reform. Equally, any reform must be rooted in fairness, transparency, and respect for minority rights. The road ahead is long. What is needed now is dialogue between the State and community representatives, to evolve a framework that protects Waqf endowments while ensuring accountability.
