5-year Islam practice clause put on hold: Supreme Court imposes partial stay on Waqf Act; 3 key provisions stayed | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to put the entire Waqf law on hold, citing the “presumption” of constitutionality in its favour, but suspended the operation of key provisions — including the clause requiring a person to have practised Islam for five years to create a waqf.However, the top court said, “some sections need some protection.” It also directed that, as far as possible, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board should be a Muslim, but allowed the amendment that permits a non-Muslim to be appointed as CEO.The top court further said that a government official’s report on whether a property is valid Waqf land would not change the title of the property without approval from the high court. During this process, the Waqf Board cannot create third-party rights over the disputed property.A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih said courts should normally treat laws passed by Parliament as valid and should only grant a stay in very rare cases. CJI BR Gavai, writing the interim order, said that although the Supreme Court is not issuing a binding direction, it would be appropriate for the Centre not to nominate more than three non-Muslims to the 11-member Central Waqf Council and to ensure that the ex-officio chairperson is from the Muslim community.On May 22, a bench led by CJI Gavai had reserved interim orders after extensive hearings from both sides. Earlier, on April 25, the Union ministry of minority affairs submitted a massive 1,332-page affidavit defending the law, urging the court not to grant a “blanket stay” on a statute that carries the presumption of constitutionality because it was enacted by Parliament. The Centre had notified the amended law on April 8 after receiving President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on April 5. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 itself had cleared the Lok Sabha on April 3 and the Rajya Sabha a day later, setting the stage for the current legal challenge.