What is the reality of the interim order issued by the Supreme Court regarding the Waqf Amendment Act? Looking at the front-page headlines of the Malayalam dailies that came out on the morning of Tuesday, September 16, one is left confused about what the actual position is, and what has been distorted for management or political interests? Readers themselves must decide who has stood for the truth, with the oppressed, and who has twisted facts. This is the time when readers must realize that the old motto “truth in every headline” has become meaningless in today’s degraded journalistic culture.

In any case, respected Fr. Joshi Mayyattil, who played a leading role in bringing this issue to public attention, has prepared a Malayalam translation of the Supreme Court judgment. For those who genuinely wish to understand the reality of this matter, the translation is provided below.

Discrimination in the Waqf Act Removed Through the Amendment

(Supreme Court Judgment, Paragraph 201) — Fr. Joshi Mayyattil

The Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih issued an interim order yesterday (September 15) in the cases filed against the Waqf Amendment Act. Anyone who carefully reads the 128-page judgment will clearly see that vested interests, politicians, and mainstream media are working hard to obscure the facts.

 What did the petitioners demand?

Among nearly a hundred petitioners, arguments from five groups were heard before the interim order was issued. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, C.U. Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi represented the petitioners. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central Government.

The petitioners argued that the Waqf Amendment Act violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution and should therefore be declared completely void. This is noted right at the beginning of the judgment. It is also worth remembering that this same demand had been made publicly by the Congress, the Muslim League, and the Left parties. Even after the interim judgment, Kerala’s opposition leader V.D. Satheesan has demanded that the amendment act be completely withdrawn.

Political leaders from both left and right had earlier argued that if Section 40 is removed, the Waqf itself becomes irrelevant. Yet it is notable that even senior advocates like Kapil Sibal did not raise any objection regarding the removal of Section 40 or the introduction of Section 2A.

Court’s Analysis

The judgment begins its analysis at paragraph 120, noting that it must first consider whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case to stay the Waqf Act 2025 in its entirety. It also traces the history of Waqf Acts since 1923.

Although petitioners attempted to challenge the constitutional validity of many provisions, the court made it clear that no prima facie case exists against the entire 2025 amendment. Instead, the complaints primarily focused on a few sections 3(r), 3C, 3D, 3E, 9, 14, 23, 36, 104, 107, 108, and 108A.

Initially, it was thought that the court would only address three issues: non-Muslim presence in Waqf Boards, de-notification of government land identified as Waqf property, and the five-year Muslim identity requirement for making Waqf. However, the court considered and ruled on all the contested provisions in its interim order.

Only One Section Actually Stayed!

Out of about thirteen major issues raised, the court fully stayed only one section, related to the process of investigating government property declared as Waqf. Below is a summary of the issues and findings:

1.Section 3(r) — Five-year Muslim requirement
The provision requiring a person to be a Muslim for five years and own the property to make Waqf is not discriminatory or arbitrary. The court noted that this prevents misuse by people temporarily converting to Islam to create Waqf properties (“clever device”). However, as there is no clarity on how to determine if someone has been Muslim for five years, the central government must frame rules for this. Until then, the five-year condition is stayed. The ownership condition is valid.

2. Section 3(r)(i) — Removal of “Waqf by user”
Since existing “Waqf by user” declarations are not affected and because large tracts of government land have been taken over in this name, the removal is not arbitrary.

3. Section 3C — Government property declared as Waqf
The court found provisions allowing senior officials to presume such property as non-Waqf during inquiry (3C(2)), amend revenue records (3C(3)), and direct state governments to amend Waqf records (3C(4)) to be prima facie unconstitutional. Such matters must go to Waqf Tribunals or courts. Hence, this section alone was stayed.

4. Section 3D — Protected monuments
Declaring Waqf on monuments protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Acts is invalid. The petitioners’ argument that Muslims cannot pray there was rejected.

5. Section 3E — Scheduled Castes and Tribes areas
Prohibiting Waqf declaration on SC/ST lands is constitutional as it protects vulnerable groups.

6. Sections 9 & 14 — Non-Muslims in Waqf Council and Boards
Petitioners feared interference in religious matters. But based on the Solicitor General’s assurance, the court directed that non-Muslims cannot exceed four in the Central Council or three in State Boards.

7. Section 23 — Non-Muslim as Waqf Board CEO
Court noted no serious problem as majority members are Muslims, but advised that the chairperson should be from the Muslim community.

8. Section 36 — Mandatory registration
Petitioners’ objections were rejected. Registration has been a requirement since 1923, removed only in 2013. Its reintroduction is valid.

9. Section 104 — Removal of non-Muslims making Waqf
Court pointed out petitioners’ contradiction: if Waqf is purely Islamic, why should non-Muslims be allowed? Suggested such donations could instead go to other trusts.

10. Section 107 — Limitation Act
The 1963 Limitation Act applies to all ownership rights in India, so it must apply to Waqf too. The earlier exemption was discriminatory.

11. Section 108 — Evictions
With the 1950 law on abandoned properties repealed, removing Section 108 is valid.

12. Section 108A — Waqf eviction law overriding other laws
Introduced only in 2013, lasted 11 years, itand s removal is valid.

 Conclusion

The Supreme Court stated:
“Looking at the whole, we find no grounds to stay the entire Act. The request to stay the Waqf Amendment Act is therefore rejected.”

In short, the interim order makes clear that the Waqf Amendment Act is constitutionally valid, while aspects of the previous law were discriminatory.

It is now expected that the central government will convene a special session of Parliament to pass the necessary rules and issue directions to states. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju’s assurance of action within three weeks may soon be realized.