Maulana Mahmood Madani and Sadatullah Husaini Warn that mosques and graveyards continue to be at risk
NEW DELHI — Premier Muslim organisations, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (Mahmood Madani faction) and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, on Monday expressed grave concern at the Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, warning that the ruling could jeopardise the protection of mosques and graveyards across the country.
Commenting on the interim order, Jamaat President Syed Sadatullah Husaini said it exposed major constitutional flaws in the law and curtailed some of the government’s most arbitrary provisions.
The community, he said, appreciated the interim protections — particularly against executive interference in Waqf properties and the suspension of impractical clauses such as the “five-year Islam” requirement — but stressed that key concerns, especially the abolition of Waqf by user, remain unresolved.
Separately, Jamiat chief Maulana Mahmood Madani also said the court’s observations on “Waqf by User” were particularly alarming and merited urgent attention. He recalled that Jamiat and other petitioners had flagged several issues before the court, including the sweeping powers granted to district collectors to decide the nature of waqf properties and the abolition of Waqf Tribunals.
“It is welcome that the court has stayed these provisions, granting partial relief,” Maulana Madani noted. “Yet the most fundamental issue—the fate of Waqf by User—remains unresolved.”
Quoting official data, he said India has more than 4 lakh waqf properties classified as “Waqf by User,” including nearly 1.2 lakh mosques and 1.5 lakh graveyards, with over 80% of them unregistered. “The amendment completely abolishes the concept of Waqf by User, offering only a cosmetic exemption for properties already registered. This fails to address the core concern,” he argued.
Jamaat chief Husaini welcomed the court striking down the sweeping powers earlier vested in Collectors and Designated Officers to unilaterally treat Waqf properties as government land even before judicial determination.
This, he said, confirms our stand that the Act attempted to give the executive powers that belong to the judiciary, violating the basic principle of separation of powers. “The order is a clear rebuke to this attempt at undue interference in Waqf management,” he said.
Maulana Madani warned that removing the doctrine of “Waqf by User” amounts to rejecting Islamic jurisprudence and centuries-old practice, undermining Muslims’ constitutionally guaranteed religious rights. “Waqf is a purely religious matter; no legislation should compromise its character or obstruct the right to religious freedom,” he stressed, adding that the interim order cannot be deemed satisfactory until “Waqf by User” is fully protected.
He also criticised the court’s remarks in paragraphs 143–152 of its order, which stated that the abolition of “Waqf by User” was not prima facie arbitrary because registration requirements had existed since the 1923 law. “If waqf properties remained unregistered for over a century, no grievance can be raised now,” the bench observed — a view Maulana Madani said placed mosques and graveyards in particular jeopardy.
The Jamiat chief concluded that his organisation, and its legal team and community bodies, would continue to pursue the matter “with seriousness and wisdom” to safeguard religious freedom and minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
On the contentious clause requiring a person to prove five years of Islamic practice before creating a Waqf, Jamaat chief Husaini said the stay of this provision “upholds our position. We consistently argued it was discriminatory, arbitrary and impractical. The court’s intervention shows such unconstitutional clauses cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, and we expect the final order to strike it down completely.”
Husaini welcomed the court’s directive restraining authorities from altering revenue records or derecognising Waqf properties while disputes are pending:
“This protects against arbitrary dispossession and preserves the constitutional right of minorities to manage their endowments until a competent court or tribunal gives a final verdict. It validates our position that the government was seeking to bypass due process.”
He also flagged the “impracticality” of the short deadline for registering all Waqfs under the new law, arguing it would invite harassment and large-scale exclusion of genuine institutions, particularly in rural and undocumented areas.
On the court’s interim restriction of non-Muslim membership in Waqf bodies, Husaini said: “Ensuring Muslim majority in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council is important, but the very logic behind mandatory non-Muslim membership is flawed. It implies mistrust of the community and is not applied to institutions of other religions. Such provisions remain unacceptable.”
The Jamaat chief stressed that the interim order is only a first step as it shows that the Waqf Amendment Act suffers from serious constitutional flaws.
“Some have been exposed now; others, we believe, will be addressed in the final hearing. Together with other organisations, we will continue our legal and democratic struggle until this unconstitutional law is overturned. We urge the government to withdraw the Act in light of constitutional principles and community concerns,” he concluded.
