SC Suspends Key Provisions of Waqf Act, Jamaat-e-Islami Welcomes Interim Order

New Delhi, September 15, 2025: Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) has welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, stating that the ruling has exposed major constitutional flaws in the new law and restricted some of the government’s most arbitrary provisions.

JIH President Syed Sadatullah Husaini said that the Court’s decision curtails excessive executive powers which allowed authorities to treat Waqf properties as government land even before judicial determination. “This is a clear affirmation of our stand that such powers violated the principle of separation of powers,” he said.

The community also appreciated the Court’s stay on the clause requiring five years of Islamic practice before creating a Waqf, calling the provision discriminatory and impractical. The suspension, Husaini noted, confirms that arbitrary restrictions on religious rights cannot survive judicial scrutiny.

On ongoing disputes, the Court directed that Waqf properties cannot be derecognised or altered in revenue records until a competent court or tribunal gives the final verdict. Husaini said this protects the constitutional right of minorities to manage their religious endowments.

However, JIH stressed that several key concerns remain unresolved. These include:

Abolition of Waqf by user, which could endanger historic mosques, graveyards, and Eidgahs without formal deeds.
Short registration deadlines, which the organisation said are unrealistic in a country where many religious endowments are undocumented and rural.
Non-Muslim representation on Waqf boards, which JIH termed discriminatory, arguing that similar conditions are not imposed on other religious institutions.

“The interim order shows that the Act suffers from deep constitutional flaws. While some issues have been addressed, others must be resolved in the final verdict,” Husaini said, reaffirming that JIH and allied organisations will continue their legal and democratic struggle against the law.

He also urged the government to withdraw the amendment, saying it runs contrary to constitutional principles and community interests.