Supreme Court's Nuanced Interim Order On The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2025-09-15 15:18:46
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court's interim judgment yesterday on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is a good example of constitutional restraint and judicial wisdom. The Court's decision stands out for its insistence on protecting both democratic processes and fundamental rights. By its measured response, the Court let it be known that it will not stand in the way of religious reform, provided it passes the constitutional test.
A Necessary Check on Executive Overreach
The Court's decision to stay specific provisions of the Act was a principled intervention. The requirement that a person must be a practicing Muslim for at least five years to manage waqf affairs risked creating arbitrary and discriminatory practices as the government had not prescribed clear guidelines for the same.By staying this provision until State Governments frame appropriate rules, the Court prevented the Executive from wielding unchecked discretion under the guise of reform.
More importantly, the Court's intervention on the separation of powers issue could not be more timely. Chief Justice Gavai's observation that "permitting the Collector to determine the rights of properties is against the doctrine of separation of powers" is a clear disapproval of bureaucratic overreach. It is a reminder that governance cannot come at the expense of citizens' rights.
Representation Without Tokenism
The Court's limit on non-Muslim representation in the Waqf bodies is another thoughtful correction. By capping their numbers, it avoids the politically motivated dilution of community voice while still allowing for inclusivity. This middle path underscores the Court's intention to shield minority institutions from majoritarian pressures without turning them into closed enclaves.
No Blanket Strikes: A Vote for Stability
While many expected the Court to strike down the Act entirely, it wisely chose not to. Complete judicial interference in legislation, it noted, should occur only in the "rarest of rare cases." By letting provisions like registration requirements and oversight reforms stand, the Court preserved space for administrative improvements that have been pending for decades. It avoided encouraging obstructionist behavior - a position that will likely be appreciated by both governance experts and community leaders.
The Human Cost - and Responsibility
Let us not forget that waqf properties are lifelines for millions - supporting mosques, schools, healthcare centers, and charitable works. Any attempt to politicise waqf management or weaponise oversight mechanisms would have far-reaching consequences for ordinary citizens. The Court's intervention recognizes this reality without being swayed by populist narratives on either side.
At the same time, reform cannot always be dismissed as an attack on religious freedom. Transparency and accountability are not enemies of faith - they are prerequisites for equitable governance. The judgment preserves this delicate balance.
Not The End Of The Debate
The Court's interim order is not the end of the debate - it is a framework within which reasoned arguments can unfold. By refraining from grandstanding, the judgment reinforces that constitutional courts are not arenas for political spectacle but bastions of principled adjudication.
Democracy becomes fragile when majoritarian impulses or bureaucratic expediency override safeguards. In that context, this verdict is a reassuring assertion that governance must remain tied to constitutional values - and that reform, however necessary, must be pursued with sensitivity, inclusiveness, and legal rigour.
