Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, describing it as a positive development for both democracy and the Muslim community.
“I welcome the order passed by the Supreme Court on the Waqf Act,” Rijiju said, while talking to reporters.
“This is a positive development for our democracy. The provisions in the Waqf Amendment Act are beneficial for the entire Muslim community. Encroachment on properties will come to an end,” Rijiju added.
“The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Parliament of India. Overall, the spirit of the judgment is a very positive sign for our country,” he said.
Also reacting to the court’s order, BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said, “The decision of improvement in the entire Waqf system, which was passed by the Parliament, is purely for the protection of faith and reform of order.”
“Unfortunately, the corrupt lobby wants a license to loot. That is why they are trying to create uproar, commotion and imaginary illusions. They are people who made the whole system of Waqf ‘touch me not’,” Naqvi said.
“They want a formula of communal entry or no entry in this secular country. No one from another religion can become a part of this administrative law. No kind of communal attack should be accepted on this,” he said.
“The court has the right to scrutinise any law of the Parliament, and the government has presented its side,” Naqvi said.
The Supreme Court today put on hold several key provisions of the amended law.
A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stayed the clause mandating that only Muslims practising for the last five years can dedicate property as Waqf.
It also paused provisions giving collectors the power to adjudicate waqf property disputes.
On the contentious issue of non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards, the court directed that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslim members out of 20, while State Waqf Boards should not exceed three out of 11.
Refusing to stay the entire law, the bench observed, “Presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases.”
The court clarified that its directions were prima facie and interim, and would not prevent the petitioners or the government from advancing full arguments on the law’s constitutional validity at the stage of final hearing.
CONGRESS REACTS TO COURT’s WAQF ACT ORDER
Meanwhile, Congress leader Pawan Khera also reacted to the court order, and said he was still studying the same in detail.
“From what I see, such a situation should not have arisen on this point either,” he said.
“When you make laws without discussion, it eventually forces the Supreme Court to intervene and grant relief. This is not the first time. Over the last 10 to 11 years, there have been many such cases,” Khera said.
“Rest, we are still studying the order,” he added.
Also commenting, Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi asked, “We are the petitioners, and we are happy. But how can the government be happy?”
“A large part of the government’s conspiracy has been stopped, and if, despite that, the government claims to be happy, then it is nothing but stubbornness on their part,” he added.
WHAT IS THE WAQF ACT
According to the Act, Waqf refers to an endowment made by a Muslim for charitable or religious purposes, such as building mosques, schools, hospitals, or other public institutions.
“Another defining feature of a Waqf is that it’s inalienable, which means it cannot be sold, gifted, inherited or encumbered,” the Act states.
On April 25, the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a preliminary 1,332-page affidavit defending the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and opposed any “blanket stay” by the court on a “law having presumption of constitutionality passed by Parliament”.
The Centre notified the Act on April 8 after it got President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on April 5.
The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on April 3 and April 4, respectively.
ALSO READ | Waqf Act In Supreme Court: From What Petitioners Argued To What SC Said, All About The Case
