New Delhi (ABC Live): On 14 September 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, upholding controversial provisions that fundamentally alter how Waqf properties are defined, managed, and regulated. The Court rejected petitions claiming the amendments were unconstitutional, instead framing them as necessary governance reforms.

This ruling reshapes the Waqf Act, 1995, weakens the century-old doctrine of “Waqf by User,” and expands State oversight of religious endowments—setting a precedent that could extend beyond Waqf to other religious institutions in India.

Why ABC Live is Publishing This Report Now

• The ruling comes at a time when India’s religious endowments face increasing scrutiny for financial leakage, encroachment, and governance failures.

• With 5.77 lakh Waqf properties across India valued at over ?1.2 lakh crore (potentially ?6 lakh crore), the stakes of this judgment are enormous for both minority rights and public land management.

• ABC Live publishes this analysis to present a fact-based, data-driven, and legally grounded perspective, cutting through polarised debates in mainstream discourse.

Key Legal Issues in the Judgment

1. Abolition of “Waqf by User”

   • Earlier: Land could become Waqf through long religious use (graveyards, mosques, dargahs).

   • Now: Doctrine abolished; only registered/documented Waqfs will be recognised.

   • Court’s reasoning: Prevent misuse where large chunks of government land were encroached upon as “Waqf by User.”

2. Government and Protected Properties

   • New rule: Government land and protected monuments cannot be declared Waqf.

   • Impact: Strengthens State custody over cultural and heritage sites.

3. Mandatory Registration and Written Deeds

   • Shift: Oral Waqfs (traditional in Islamic law) are now invalid.

   • Court’s stance: Aligns with the long legislative history of compulsory registration since 1923.

4. Reconstitution of Waqf Boards

   • Change: Non-Muslims may hold the majority in Councils/Boards; CEOs appointed by the government.

   • Court’s logic: Administration of Waqf is a secular function, not a religious one.

5. Scheduled Tribe and Evacuee Land Restrictions

• • Effect: Future Waqfs cannot be created from these lands.

  • Justification: Protects constitutional safeguards for tribal land rights.

Data Analysis: The Scale of Waqf in India

Critical Analysis

1. Doctrinal Shift

By discarding “Waqf by User”, the Court broke with a doctrine recognised since Ilahi Bakhsh (1912 PC) and Salie Labbai (1976 SC). This elevates formal property law over community practice, marking a paradigmatic shift in Indian Waqf jurisprudence.

2. Secularisation of Waqf Governance

The Court treated Waqf Boards as statutory State entities under Article 12, narrowing the scope of Article 26(b) rights to manage religious affairs. This strengthens bureaucratic oversight, but weakens minority autonomy.

3. Efficiency vs. Autonomy

• Potentially positive: Could unlock revenue streams from undervalued assets, curb encroachment, and reduce litigation.

• Negative risk: Excessive politicisation and alienation of Muslim institutions.

4. Wider Precedent

The ruling signals that all religious endowments (Hindu temples, Christian trusts, Sikh gurdwaras) may face greater State regulation, equalising oversight but raising constitutional questions on religious freedom.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, is a watershed moment. It:

• Strengthens State power over religious endowments.

• Reshapes the Waqf Act, 1995, into a more formalised, bureaucratic model.

• Weakens traditional doctrines of Islamic law, prioritising property formalism.

• Sets a precedent for the uniform regulation of all religious property regimes in India.

The long-term outcome depends on whether these reforms lead to better asset management or trigger community disempowerment.

ABC Live Editorial Note

Mainstream narratives have reduced this case to a Hindu–Muslim conflict. ABC Live believes the real issue is larger: Who controls religious property in a modern democracy—the community or the State? This judgment signals that the balance is shifting towards the State. By presenting legal reasoning, historical context, and data insights, ABC Live aims to equip readers to understand the governance stakes, not just the political rhetoric.

Read the Supreme Court Judgment 

Also, Read

Explained: SC Ruling on Right to Shelter & Speculative Homebuyers