NEW DELHI — The All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Friday expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s “silence” on “validation” of certain contentious provisions of the new Waqf Act and resolved to continue its movement against the amendments until the government withdraws them.
The Working Committee of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) held an emergency online meeting under the chairmanship of Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani to review the Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
After deliberations, a resolution was adopted in which the Board thanked the opposition parties, MPs, civil society groups, human rights organisations, minority leaders and justice-loving citizens for their support in resisting the controversial Waqf law, a statement by the Muslim body said.
The Committee welcomed the court’s decision to curb the excessive powers of Collectors, terming it a major relief.
However, it expressed concern over the court’s silence or validation of other contentious provisions, including ending the waqf status of properties under the Archaeological Survey of India, mandatory registration of waqf properties, abolishing exemption from the Law of Limitation, inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies and restriction on tribal people dedicating land for waqf.
These, the Board said, are disappointing and based on the false presumption that waqf Mutawallies act arbitrarily.
The Board affirmed that its struggle is not limited to this interim verdict but is essentially against the government’s policy of “targeting Muslim endowments”.
The Board expressed hope that the final judgment will be “more just” and reiterated its resolve to continue the movement for the protection of waqf properties until the government withdraws the controversial amendments and restores the earlier Waqf Act.
The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a few key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including a clause that only those practising Islam for the last five years could create a waqf, but refused to stay the entire law outlining the presumption of constitutionality in its favour.
“Presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of a statute and intervention (can be done) only in the rarest of rare cases,” a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said in its 128-page interim order on the contentious issue.
The bench went on, “We do not find that any case is made to stay the provisions of the entire statute. The prayer for stay of the impugned Act is, therefore, rejected.”
However, in order to “protect the interest of parties” and “balance the equities”, the order stayed some provisions including the powers accorded to a Collector to adjudicate the status of waqf properties and ruled on the issue of non-Muslim participation in Waqf Boards.
The bench, therefore, directed the Central Waqf Council not to have more than four non-Muslim members in the total composition of 20, besides asking state waqf boards to have not more than three such members in the total of 11.
