The Supreme Court strongly upheld judicial precedent while hearing challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, asserting that legislative actions cannot invalidate court-established property rights. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, emphasized that while Parliament can modify laws, it cannot nullify existing judicial declarations of Waqf properties. The Court’s stance highlights the delicate balance between legislative authority and judicial precedent, particularly in matters concerning religious endowments and property rights established through decades of jurisprudence.
Supreme Court affirms waqf-by-user as a valid legal concept
In a decisive legal stance, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna repeatedly questioned the validity of waqf-by-user properties under the amended law during court proceedings. The concept of waqf-by-user, a longstanding practice in Islamic law where properties become waqf through continuous religious use, faced scrutiny due to amendments seeking its removal from the Waqf Act.
Court protects waqf properties declared by judicial orders
CJI Khanna pointedly asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: “Are you now saying that waqf-by-user, even if established by judgments of the Courts or otherwise without dispute, are void now?” This question underscored the Court’s concern about legislative attempts to invalidate judicial precedent established over decades.
After hearing submissions, the Supreme Court proposed an interim order with a clear directive: properties already declared as waqfs by courts should not be de-notified, regardless of whether they were established through waqf-by-user or formal deeds, while the matter remains under judicial consideration.
The Court expressed particular concern regarding the provision inserted in Section 2A, which attempts to override court judgments declaring properties as waqf. CJI Khanna firmly stated, “The legislature cannot declare any judgment or decree of court as void, you can remove the basis of law, but you cannot declare any judgment or declare as not binding.“
Furthermore, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi highlighted the significant impact of removing waqf-by-user, noting that approximately four lakh out of eight lakh waqf properties are waqf-by-user, which would effectively become illegal “with one stroke of the pen” under the amendments.
The bench specifically addressed the practical impossibility of requiring registration for centuries-old properties. “Before the Britishers came, we did not have any registration. Many of the masjids are created in 14th or 15th centuries. To require them to produce a registered deed is impossible. Most of the cases, say Jama Masjid Delhi, the waqf will be waqf-by-user,” observed CJI Khanna.
CJI Khanna drew on historical judicial precedent, noting, “I have gone through judgments of the Privy Council from 1920. If you are going to denotify waqf-by-user properties, it will be an issue.“
Collector’s inquiry cannot override court-declared waqfs
The Court additionally questioned Section 3C of the amended act, which stipulates that a property would not be considered a waqf while a Collector investigates whether it is government land. “Is that fair?” CJI Khanna asked, challenging the provision that essentially strips waqf status during inquiry periods.
When the Solicitor General claimed the provision only affects revenue entries while use as waqf continues, CJI Khanna immediately pressed for clarity: “So if the property is generating rents, to whom the rent has to be paid?” This question highlighted the practical implications of suspending waqf status during government inquiries.
Senior Advocate CU Singh pointed out the severe consequences of this provision, explaining that if the government claims a 300-year-old waqf property, that property could lose its waqf status for 20-30 years while the designated officer decides the dispute.
In response to government arguments that registration has been mandatory since 2013, CJI Khanna remained unconvinced: “This will be undoing something established by law. How will you register a waqf-by-user? There will be no registered documents.”
The Court criticized the attempt to “rewrite the past,” with CJI Khanna stating, “Where public trust has been declared as waqf, say 100 or 200 years back, you turn about and say it is not waqf…You cannot rewrite the past of 100 years back!“
Consequently, the Court proposed that the proviso allowing a Collector’s inquiry to suspend waqf status should not be given effect while the judicial consideration continues, reinforcing the principle that administrative actions cannot supersede judicial declarations.
Court questions override of historical waqf declarations
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna challenged the fundamental constitutional validity of legislative provisions attempting to override established judicial declarations of waqf properties. Throughout the hearing, the bench expressed particular concern about Section 2A’s proviso that purportedly invalidates court rulings regarding waqf status.
Judicially recognized waqfs cannot be nullified by statute
The Supreme Court emphasized a critical constitutional principle: while Parliament can modify laws, it cannot retroactively void court judgments. CJI Khanna articulated this position unambiguously: “The legislature cannot declare any judgment or decree of court as void, you can remove the basis of law but you cannot declare any judgment or declare as not binding.” This statement came in direct response to provisions in the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 that appeared to invalidate previous judicial determinations.
When confronted with this constitutional concern, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conceded, “I don’t know why those words have come. Ignore that part.” Nevertheless, the Court remained troubled by the amendment’s apparent intent to override judicial precedent established over decades.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that waqf-by-user has been “judicially recognized in many decisions” and that Parliament had deleted the concept “without removing the basis of these decisions.” This approach, according to Singhvi, threatened to “disturb the status quo continuing for many years” through provisions he characterized as “pernicious.”
The Court further questioned how such provisions would apply to properties that courts had declared as waqf decades or even centuries ago. CJI Khanna pointedly asked, “Where public trust has been declared as waqf, say 100 or 200 years back, you turn about and say it is not waqf… You cannot rewrite the past of 100 years back!”
CJI cites Jama Masjid and other centuries-old waqfs
Throughout the hearing, CJI Khanna repeatedly referenced historical properties to illustrate the practical impossibility of the registration requirements for ancient waqfs. Most notably, he cited Delhi’s Jama Masjid as a prime example of waqf-by-user that could be threatened by the amendments.
“Before the Britishers came, we did not have any registration. Many of the masjids were created in the 14th or 15th centuries. To require them to produce a registered deed is impossible,” CJI Khanna observed. When the Solicitor General asked, “What prevented them from registering?” the Court noted that many properties predate modern registration systems entirely.
The bench demonstrated thorough historical knowledge, with CJI Khanna stating, “I have gone through judgments of the Privy Council from 1920. If you are going to denotify waqf-by-user properties, it will be an issue.” This reference to century-old precedents underscored the Court’s concern about disrupting long-established property rights.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted another historical complication: “When the British came, many Waqf properties were entered in the register as belonging to the Governor General and after independence, the Government is staking claim over such properties.” This colonial-era record-keeping issue further complicates attempts to require documentation for historical waqfs.
The Court raised five specific concerns about the provisions, including how waqf-by-user properties existing for centuries could reasonably be expected to register, and how the amendments could override court judgments declaring properties to be waqf. CJI Khanna’s focus on historical examples demonstrated the practical implications of the amendments beyond legal theory, emphasizing the centuries of religious and social practice that would be affected.
Judges challenge the state’s role in defining religious endowments
Beyond questioning amendments affecting historical waqfs, the Supreme Court raised critical concerns about state interference in defining religious practices and private family endowments. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with fellow bench members, systematically challenged provisions that expand government authority over religious matters traditionally governed by community practice.
Bench critiques the requirement of a 5-year Islamic practice
The bench specifically questioned the amended law’s controversial provision requiring proof of at least 5 years of Islamic practice for a property to qualify as waqf. CJI Khanna expressed discomfort with this time-bound requirement, asking, “How can the law mandate a specific duration of religious practice? Who determines what constitutes proper Islamic practice?”
Justice Khanna further questioned the constitutional validity of such provisions, noting, “The state appears to be assuming the role of determining what constitutes Islamic religious practice. This raises serious questions about secular governance principles.“
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted this concern, arguing that allowing government officials to determine whether a property follows Islamic religious practices contradicts India’s secular framework: “How can a Collector, who may have no knowledge of Islamic practices, determine whether a property meets religious requirements?”
The Court also pointed out the arbitrary nature of the 5-year requirement. “Why five years specifically? What is the rational basis for this timeframe?” asked Justice Khanna. “Religious dedication cannot be measured by calendar years.“
Concerns raised over state interference in waqf-alal-aulad
The Supreme Court expressed particular concern about amendments affecting waqf-alal-aulad (family waqfs), where property is dedicated primarily for family members with ultimate benefit to religious or charitable causes. “These are essentially private family trusts with a religious aspect,” observed Justice Khanna. “The extent of state interference permitted in these private arrangements is constitutionally questionable.“
The bench examined how the amendments could potentially transform private family endowments into public trusts subject to extensive governmental control. Justice Khanna questioned: “If a family has established a private arrangement with religious elements, on what basis can the state assume control over it?”
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi argued that the amendments represented unprecedented interference in religious matters: “In essence, these provisions allow government officials with no religious training to override centuries of Islamic jurisprudence on what constitutes a valid waqf.”
Throughout the hearing, the Court maintained that while the state can regulate certain aspects of religious endowments, it cannot define the religious practices themselves. As Justice Khanna emphasized, “The line between regulation and interference must be clearly drawn, especially in matters of religious practice.”
The Court’s questioning reflects broader judicial precedent that religious communities maintain substantial autonomy in defining their practices, with state intervention limited to specific public interest concerns rather than defining religious validity itself.
Court defends religious autonomy in board composition
A significant clash over religious governance emerged as the Supreme Court scrutinized provisions allowing non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards, highlighting concerns about religious autonomy and self-governance. The bench expressed serious reservations about amendments that permit appointing non-Muslim members to bodies overseeing Islamic religious endowments.
Non-Muslim inclusion in Waqf Boards draws scrutiny
Chief Justice Khanna directly questioned the Solicitor General about Sections 9 and 14 of the amended Act that enable the nomination of non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal characterized this provision as “a direct violation of Article 26” and “a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million persons.“
The exchange grew tense when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked, “Going by their logic, then your lordships can’t also hear this matter.” This comment visibly irked the bench, prompting a firm response from CJI Khanna:
“When we are sitting here to adjudicate, we lose our religion. We are talking about a Board which is managing religious affairs. Let’s say in a Hindu temple, all are Hindu in the Governor Council. How are you comparing with judges?”
Though Mehta asserted the Board would maintain a Muslim majority with “non-Muslims not more than 2,” Justice Kumar challenged this claim, noting the statute contained no such limitation. He stated the SG’s argument was “militating against the statute” itself. Faced with this scrutiny, the Solicitor General pledged to file an affidavit clarifying the composition and assured that current boards would continue until their terms ended.
CJI compares with the Hindu and Sikh religious boards
Importantly, the Court drew direct parallels with governance structures of other religious institutions. Justice Viswanathan observed that “whenever it comes to Hindu endowments, it would be Hindus who would be governing.” When the Solicitor General argued that control could be by boards including non-Hindus, Justice Kumar pointedly asked him to provide an example and noted that “the Tirupati temple board has no Hindus.“
The Court’s proposed interim order reflected these concerns, stating: “All Members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.” CJI Khanna elaborated: “Regarding board and council… ex officio members can be appointed. But the other members have to be Muslims.“
This position maintains judicial precedent recognizing that religious endowments generally remain under the governance of adherents of that faith, respecting constitutional provisions for religious communities to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
Legal precedent shapes the future of waqf governance
The Supreme Court’s interim proposals herald significant precedent for religious property governance in India. After examining challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, the Court outlined three crucial protective measures that will likely shape waqf administration for decades.
Court signals protection of long-standing waqf practices
The bench’s proposed interim measures create a robust framework preserving historical judicial declarations of waqf properties. Most significantly, the Court stipulated that properties previously declared as waqfs by judicial orders should remain protected regardless of registration status. “Our interim order will balance equities,” stated CJI Khanna, affirming that properties judicially recognized as waqf “will not be denotified or treated as non-waqf… whether it’s waqf by user or not.”
This stance draws directly from decades of established jurisprudence. CJI Khanna explicitly referenced his examination of Privy Council judgments from 1920, demonstrating the Court’s commitment to honoring century-old legal precedents. Moreover, the Court addressed practical governance concerns by specifying that while Collectors may continue inquiry proceedings, their investigations cannot suspend a property’s waqf status.
The Court’s decision to consolidate waqf-related petitions from various High Courts further reinforces its intention to establish uniform precedent nationwide regarding religious property governance.
Implications for other religious endowment laws
This case establishes critical principles potentially affecting all religious endowment governance in India. First, it reinforces that administrative actions cannot override judicial declarations – a principle applicable across religious boundaries. Second, it affirms that religious boards should primarily comprise adherents of that faith, with Justice Kumar noting that “the Tirupati temple board has no Hindus” when discussing parallel governance structures.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde’s reference to “a long Akali movement to ensure that Golden Temple was not controlled by non-Sikhs” highlights how this precedent connects to historical struggles for religious self-governance across faiths. The Court’s scrutiny of state interference in defining religious validity creates boundaries certainly applicable to Hindu, Christian, and other faith-based endowments. Ultimately, these proceedings establish judicial guardrails separating legitimate regulation from unconstitutional intrusion – principles that will undoubtedly guide religious property governance henceforth.
Conclusion
Supreme Court’s decisive stance safeguards centuries of established waqf jurisprudence while setting clear boundaries for legislative authority. Chief Justice Khanna’s bench effectively balanced regulatory needs with religious autonomy, protecting historical waqf properties from arbitrary denotification. Their ruling establishes crucial safeguards for religious endowments, particularly properties declared as waqfs through judicial orders.
Above all, this landmark decision reinforces three fundamental principles: legislative actions cannot nullify court-established property rights, religious communities maintain substantial autonomy in governance, and administrative inquiries must respect judicial declarations. These principles extend beyond waqf properties, creating significant precedent for all religious endowments across India.
The Court’s protection of waqf-by-user properties, especially centuries-old institutions like Delhi’s Jama Masjid, demonstrates judicial commitment to preserving religious heritage. Their emphasis on Muslim representation in Waqf Boards strengthens religious self-governance while establishing clear limits on state interference in defining religious practices.
This comprehensive ruling shapes future religious property governance, ensuring protection for historical endowments while maintaining essential regulatory oversight. The Court’s balanced approach creates lasting precedent, strengthening India’s constitutional framework for religious freedom and property rights.
Disclaimer: The opinions and views in the articles and research papers published on this website; are personal and independent opinions of the author. The website is not responsible for them.
Legal Thirst has created a Telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, Events, and various opportunities.
You can click on this link and join:
Follow Legal Thirst on Instagram and Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.