September 16, 2025

Big news from the Supreme Court! A key part of the fresh Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 has been put on hold. The controversial rule says only a person practising Islam for 5 years can create a waqf (a religious endowment). However, the court has paused this because there are no clear rules on how to prove someone’s Islamic practice. The bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, carefully studied the rule. While some argued that this 5-year practice condition is unfair and discriminatory, the court disagreed. "Prima facie, we are of the view that such a provision cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory," the judges said. But here’s the twist — the court said it can’t enforce this rule immediately. Why? Because there’s no method to check if a person has truly been practising Islam for 5 years. Without such a check, putting this law into action would be unfair and confusing. The judges explained, "Unless rules are made by the central government, the provision requiring a person to show or demonstrate practice of Islam for at least 5 years in order to dedicate property as waqf cannot be given effect to." The court also tackled another part of the law about “wrongful declaration of waqf” concerning government property. They pointed out that government property belongs to all citizens and can’t just be claimed by anyone wrongly. The court felt that stopping a property from being declared waqf before proper inquiry isn’t right either. They said, "Treating said property not as waqf property before proper determination is, in our prima facie view, arbitrary." So, what’s the takeaway? The law’s intent to protect waqf is clear, but the Supreme Court wants proper rules and fair checks before enforcing certain parts. For now, the 5-year Islam practice rule waits in the sidelines until the government frames clear guidelines. Stay tuned for more updates on this legal drama!

Read More at Economictimes →

Tags: Supreme court, Waqf amendment act, Islamic practice, 5-year rule, Discrimination, Property law,