Background: What Is the Waqf Act Controversy?
A significant legal challenge is unfolding as the Supreme Court hears multiple petitions against the recently amended Waqf law. The law introduces new rules requiring non-Muslim members to be included in both the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards. Additionally, it limits who may donate to Waqf institutions—stating only practicing Muslims may do so. These changes have triggered intense debates, legal objections, and political repercussions across the country.
Petitioners argue that the legislation violates constitutional guarantees such as religious freedom, equality, and the right to manage religious affairs. Meanwhile, the Centre remains firm in defending the law, citing parliamentary procedures and constitutional frameworks as its foundation.
1. Government Opposes Interim Stay on the Waqf Law
During the hearing, the government explicitly opposed any form of interim stay on the implementation of the new provisions. It emphasized that laws passed by Parliament are presumed constitutional and that courts should exercise extreme caution before interfering with statutory mandates. Granting a temporary injunction, the Centre argued, would upset the balance of power between the judiciary and legislature.
The Attorney General submitted that there’s no immediate or individual harm demonstrated by the petitions that would warrant a freeze on enforcement.
2. Petitioners Raise Fundamental Rights Concerns
A coalition of opposition parties—including the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, DMK, and JDU—as well as religious organizations like the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, have challenged the new law. They argue the requirement to include non-Muslims on Waqf boards violates religious autonomy, and the donation restriction infringes on the fundamental rights of Muslims.
One particularly sharp moment in the hearing came when the court asked the government whether it would allow Muslims to be included on Hindu religious endowment boards—a pointed way of testing the law’s parity.
3. Separation of Powers at the Forefront
The court reiterated its role in maintaining the constitutional separation of powers. While it holds the authority to assess a law’s validity, it must avoid stepping into legislative territory unless absolutely necessary. This is especially true in cases where a law has been passed after thorough deliberation in Parliament, as in this case.
An interim stay had been under consideration after reports of unrest—including violent clashes in Bengal and Lucknow. However, the court agreed to defer the decision after the government requested more time.
4. Temporary Assurance by the Government
To address concerns in the short term, the government assured the bench that no new appointments would be made to the Waqf boards and that no changes in the status of Waqf-managed properties would occur while the matter is sub judice. This assurance helped the court justify not issuing an interim stay at the present stage.
5. Political Ramifications and Electoral Context
The legal challenge is not merely a constitutional issue—it also carries strong political overtones. Among the petitioners is Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s JDU, a key ally of the ruling BJP. With Assembly elections looming in Bihar later this year, the issue is expected to be a flashpoint in political campaigns, especially in areas with significant Muslim populations.
The unusual alignment of ideologically diverse opposition parties and civil society organizations signals the broader societal concerns over the law’s perceived impact on religious rights and minority protections.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead for the Waqf Law
The ongoing hearings will determine the future of the Waqf law and set a precedent for how Indian democracy handles the intersection of religion, law, and governance. While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity, its cautious approach suggests that it will weigh every aspect carefully.
In the meantime, the Centre’s assurances provide temporary relief, but the debate around this law is far from over. As the court continues to hear arguments, the case remains a landmark one for India’s legal and political landscape.
Related: How India’s Judiciary Balances Religion and Law
External Sources:
