The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has created a significant political divide, with the Opposition celebrating it as a victory for minority rights while the ruling BJP interprets it as a validation of Parliamentary supremacy. The contentious legislation, which has been at the centre of heated debates, received partial relief from the apex court, leading to contrasting interpretations across the political spectrum.
Also Read: Waqf Amendment Act 2025
Other: Modi, Bihar Seemanchal
Opposition Welcomes Supreme Court Intervention
The Opposition parties have unanimously welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as a crucial intervention that protects minority rights. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge expressed satisfaction with the court’s order, stating that it “reaffirmed its resolve to protect the rights of minorities – a cause for which the Opposition stands united against the Modi government.”
Kharge strongly criticised the BJP’s approach, arguing that the party “had sought to bulldoze a divisive law, designed solely to inflame communal passions and reopen issues that India had long settled.” This statement reflects the Opposition’s consistent stance that the Waqf Amendment Act was politically motivated rather than being driven by genuine reform intentions.
Congress MP and communications in-charge Jairam Ramesh characterised the order as “a substantial victory” for Opposition parties and praised “all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes.” Ramesh’s interpretation highlighted the Opposition’s belief that their concerns about the legislation were validated by the court’s intervention.
BJP Maintains Parliamentary Supremacy Argument
Union Minister for Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju offered a markedly different interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order, calling it a “positive development” that reinforced Parliament’s authority. Rijiju emphasised that the court order served as a “stamp” on the principle that “no one can challenge the authority of Parliament in courts.”
The Minister highlighted the extensive parliamentary process that preceded the Waqf Amendment Act, noting that detailed debates were held in both Houses. “It was the longest discussion in the history of the Indian Parliament,” Rijiju stated, arguing that such comprehensive deliberation made the legislation immune to judicial nullification.
Rijiju maintained that the Waqf Amendment Act provisions would benefit the Muslim community by preventing “the misuse of properties through Waqf.” He acknowledged that while the court addressed one aspect regarding ‘practising Muslims,’ the overall judgment’s spirit was positive for Parliamentary democracy.
Key Provisions Under Judicial Scrutiny
The Supreme Court’s interim order addressed several contentious aspects of the Waqf Amendment Act. According to Jairam Ramesh, the court’s intervention included staying the powers of collectors in determining Waqf property status, protecting existing Waqf properties from questionable challenges, and halting the provision requiring proof of being Muslim for five years to make Waqf endowments until proper rules are established.
The Opposition’s legal counsel had argued that the Waqf Amendment Act‘s provisions were designed “to keep the voter base inflamed and create an administrative structure to indulge those seeking to foment religious disputes.” This argument appears to have found resonance in the court’s decision to grant partial relief.
Mixed Reactions from Stakeholders
Mixed Reactions from StakeholdersCongress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, one of the petitioners against the Waqf Amendment Act, expressed relief at the Supreme Court’s intervention, describing it as putting “a hold on the conspiracy and the intention of the government.” This sentiment was echoed by several Opposition leaders who viewed the order as validation of their concerns about the legislation’s communal implications.
However, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) expressed disappointment with the interim order, calling it “incomplete and unsatisfactory.” AIMPLB spokesperson S Q R Ilyas stated that the Muslim community had expected a comprehensive stay on all clauses of the Waqf Amendment Act. The organisation raised concerns about provisions, including the prospective de-recognition of ‘Waqf by user’ and mandatory Waqf deed requirements, which they argued contradicted established Islamic law principles.
Regional Political Perspectives
Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav reiterated the Opposition’s consistent position that the government should not interfere in Waqf matters. Speaking from his party headquarters in Lucknow, Yadav expressed hope that the Supreme Court would deliver justice in its final order on the Waqf Amendment Act.
Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose emphasised that the most “contentious clauses” of the legislation were stayed by the Supreme Court, interpreting this as “an important message to the rickety Modi coalition.” This perspective reflects the Opposition’s broader strategy of portraying the government as unstable and divisive.
Coalition Partners’ Stance
Coalition Partners’ StanceBJP ally JD(U) offered a different interpretation through spokesperson Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, who argued that the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the Waqf Amendment Act entirely represented “a major setback for the Opposition, which has been spreading misinformation about it.” Another ally, LJP (Ramvilas), downplayed the significance of the order, suggesting that the case would proceed on merits.
Looking Forward
The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf Amendment Act has set the stage for continued legal and political battles. While the Opposition celebrates a partial victory in protecting minority rights, the ruling party maintains that Parliamentary authority remains intact. The final judgment will likely have far-reaching implications for minority rights, religious property management, and the balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight.
The Waqf Amendment Act controversy reflects deeper tensions in Indian politics regarding minority rights, religious identity, and the role of institutions in protecting constitutional values. As the case proceeds to the final hearing, all stakeholders await a comprehensive resolution that addresses the legitimate concerns raised by various parties while upholding constitutional principles.
