NEW DELHI: Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju interpreted the Supreme Court's order on Waqf Amendment Act 2025 in Centre's favour, saying that the apex court "upheld the decision made in the Parliament." SC stalled key provisions of the act, including the clause that only practising Muslim of five years can dedicate a property as Waqf.
Meanwhile, Congress viewed the judgement from an opposite lens saying that the order put a "complete stop to government's conspiracy", welcoming it as a relief for hose who feared their lands will be grabbed.
Also read: SC imposes partial stay on Waqf Act; 3 key provisions stayed
'Law made in Parliament can't be rejected'
Welcoming the judgement, Kiren Rijiju called it a win for "democracy" noting that "when any law is made in the Parliament, it cannot be rejected."
"I welcome the order passed by the Supreme Court today after a full hearing on the Waqf Amendment Act. The Supreme Court knows the entire subject," Rijiju said.
"I believe that whatever the Supreme Court bench has decided is a very good sign for our democracy, because when any law is made in the Parliament, it cannot be reject and this is what the Supreme Court has approved today... I am satisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court, and because it is the highest court of the country, whenever any decision comes from the Supreme Court, it has an impact, and in a way, the decision of the Parliament of India has been upheld. We will see the case of a practising Muslim and what should be included in the rules," he added.
'Govt's conspiracy stopped'
Viewing the judgement as against the central government's "attempt to grab land", Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi pointed to SC's take on "practising Muslim for five years" clause and welcomed the stay on the provision.
"This is a really good decision. The Supreme Court has put a complete stop to the conspiracy and intentions of the government. People who donate their land were fearful that the government would attempt to grab their land. This is a relief to them. How will the government decide who has been a practising Muslim for five years? This is a matter of faith. The court took note of all these aspects. We will continue the fight," he said.
Expressing similar sentiments, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said, "The Supreme Court’s order today on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 represents a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then ignored but now stand vindicated."
"The Order is an important one because it goes a long way towards undoing the mischievous intentions underlying the original statute. Counsels for the opposition parties had argued that the law would result in the creation of a structure where anyone and everyone could challenge the status of the property before the Collector, and the status of the property would be in limbo while in such litigation. Additionally, only a ‘Muslim’ practising for 5 years could donate to a Waqf. The intention behind these sections was always apparent - to keep the voter base inflamed and create an administrative structure to indulge those seeking to foment religious disputes," he added.
What was SC's order?
Among the key provisions stayed was the clause requiring a person to be a practising Muslim for five years before dedicating property as Waqf, with the court noting the absence of any rules to fairly determine such status.
The bench also pressed pause on provisions vesting wide powers in government collectors to decide whether a property qualifies as Waqf, warning that such authority would amount to the executive determining citizens’ rights, in violation of the principle of separation of powers.
The order further limited the role of non-Muslim members in Waqf institutions, directing that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslims out of 20 members, and State Waqf Boards not more than three out of 11.
While refusing to stay provisions on the registration of Waqfs or appointment of board CEOs, the bench observed that, as far as possible, efforts should be made to appoint CEOs from the Muslim community. The court clarified that its directions were interim in nature, issued to safeguard rights until the law’s constitutional validity is examined in full at the final hearing.
Meanwhile, Congress viewed the judgement from an opposite lens saying that the order put a "complete stop to government's conspiracy", welcoming it as a relief for hose who feared their lands will be grabbed.
Also read: SC imposes partial stay on Waqf Act; 3 key provisions stayed
'Law made in Parliament can't be rejected'
Welcoming the judgement, Kiren Rijiju called it a win for "democracy" noting that "when any law is made in the Parliament, it cannot be rejected."
"I welcome the order passed by the Supreme Court today after a full hearing on the Waqf Amendment Act. The Supreme Court knows the entire subject," Rijiju said.
"I believe that whatever the Supreme Court bench has decided is a very good sign for our democracy, because when any law is made in the Parliament, it cannot be reject and this is what the Supreme Court has approved today... I am satisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court, and because it is the highest court of the country, whenever any decision comes from the Supreme Court, it has an impact, and in a way, the decision of the Parliament of India has been upheld. We will see the case of a practising Muslim and what should be included in the rules," he added.
#WATCH | Mumbai: On SC's order in the Waqf Amendment Act, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju says, "I welcome the order passed by the Supreme Court today after a full hearing on the Waqf Amendment Act. The Supreme Court knows the entire subject. The case was presented in great detail.… pic.twitter.com/te4kVt39HW
— ANI (@ANI) September 15, 2025
'Govt's conspiracy stopped'
Viewing the judgement as against the central government's "attempt to grab land", Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi pointed to SC's take on "practising Muslim for five years" clause and welcomed the stay on the provision.
"This is a really good decision. The Supreme Court has put a complete stop to the conspiracy and intentions of the government. People who donate their land were fearful that the government would attempt to grab their land. This is a relief to them. How will the government decide who has been a practising Muslim for five years? This is a matter of faith. The court took note of all these aspects. We will continue the fight," he said.
Expressing similar sentiments, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said, "The Supreme Court’s order today on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 represents a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then ignored but now stand vindicated."
"The Order is an important one because it goes a long way towards undoing the mischievous intentions underlying the original statute. Counsels for the opposition parties had argued that the law would result in the creation of a structure where anyone and everyone could challenge the status of the property before the Collector, and the status of the property would be in limbo while in such litigation. Additionally, only a ‘Muslim’ practising for 5 years could donate to a Waqf. The intention behind these sections was always apparent - to keep the voter base inflamed and create an administrative structure to indulge those seeking to foment religious disputes," he added.
The Supreme Court’s order today on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 represents a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then…
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) September 15, 2025
What was SC's order?
Among the key provisions stayed was the clause requiring a person to be a practising Muslim for five years before dedicating property as Waqf, with the court noting the absence of any rules to fairly determine such status.
The bench also pressed pause on provisions vesting wide powers in government collectors to decide whether a property qualifies as Waqf, warning that such authority would amount to the executive determining citizens’ rights, in violation of the principle of separation of powers.
The order further limited the role of non-Muslim members in Waqf institutions, directing that the Central Waqf Council should not have more than four non-Muslims out of 20 members, and State Waqf Boards not more than three out of 11.
While refusing to stay provisions on the registration of Waqfs or appointment of board CEOs, the bench observed that, as far as possible, efforts should be made to appoint CEOs from the Muslim community. The court clarified that its directions were interim in nature, issued to safeguard rights until the law’s constitutional validity is examined in full at the final hearing.
You may also like
'Enough racism that I started to feel...': Redditor says 'couldn't cope in the UK', moved back to India
The Chase fans threaten to 'switch off' over devastating blunder in series first
RAF deploys fighter jets in response to 'aggression from Vladimir Putin'
Bengal school job scam: Framing of charges against Partha Chatterjee in the 3rd CBI case completed
India's beach you've probably never heard of among Asia's top 10 beaches. How to get there?
