Buzzflix April 16, 2025 | By BuzzFlix Team
In a dramatic courtroom exchange on April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India raised serious constitutional concerns over the proposed amendments to the Waqf Act. At the heart of the discussion is whether the legislature can override or render judicial decisions ineffective—a move that could have wide-reaching implications for Muslim charitable trusts, tribunal powers, and individual rights.
The debate shines a spotlight on two key issues:
- Exemption of Muslim trusts from Waqf laws.
- New appeal rights for those aggrieved by decisions of the Waqf Tribunal.
What’s in the amendment?
Section 2: A Controversial New Proviso
The proposed amendment to Section 2 of the Waqf Act introduces the following clause:
“Provided further that nothing in this Act shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, or order of any court, apply to a trust… established by a Muslim for a purpose similar to a waqf under any law…”
This essentially attempts to exclude certain trusts created by Muslims—especially those that resemble waqf but are not formally registered—from the Waqf Board’s jurisdiction.
Chief Justice’s reaction:
“The legislature cannot declare any judgment or decree of court as void. You can remove the basis of law, but you cannot declare any judgment as not binding.”
This sharp remark underlines a key constitutional principle: Parliament can change the law but not invalidate judicial decisions retroactively.
Section 3: Appeals Made Possible
The amendment also proposes a new subsection (9):
“Any person aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal may appeal to the High Court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal.”
Earlier, decisions of the Waqf Tribunal were considered final. Now, this amendment allows any aggrieved person to challenge the decision before the High Court—a major shift that enhances access to justice.
👨⚖️ Justice Viswanathan pointed this out in court, prompting the SG to respond:
“I am grateful; this decision of the tribunal was final, now it has become broader.”
The “Waqf-by-User” Dilemma
Another sticking point was the issue of “waqf-by-user” properties—lands and institutions used as waqf for generations without formal registration.
🗨️ CJI observed:
“As far as waqf-by-user is concerned, it’s difficult to register. You have a point—it is misused. But you cannot say there is no genuine waqf by user.”
In simple terms, not every unregistered waqf property is fraudulent. Denotifying all such properties, as suggested in parts of the amendment, would hurt legitimate community practices and historical religious trusts.
Why It Matters
These amendments raise constitutional red flags and social concerns:
- Can Parliament override a court judgment? The Constitution says no.
- Will this marginalize genuine Muslim charitable efforts?
- Should tribunals have final authority, or must high courts step in for justice?
The Supreme Court’s firm stance makes it clear that checks and balances between the legislature and the judiciary are vital for democracy.
This is not just about property law. This is about:
- Religious freedom
- Judicial independence
- Government accountability
As India’s legal and social landscape evolves, amendments like these must be scrutinized through both legal and humanitarian lenses.
- What is a Waqf? Understanding Muslim Charitable Trusts in India
- Top 5 Supreme Court Judgments That Shaped Indian Law
- Why Tribunal Appeals Matter for Every Citizen
BuzzFlix Call to Action
Justice is not just for lawyers—it’s for everyone.
If you care about your rights, your property, and your community, stay in the know.
👉 Follow BuzzFlix for updates, explainers, and expert commentary on laws that impact YOU.
