Question 1

The Supreme Court completely struck down the new Waqf Act because it violated minority rights.

Accepted Answer

The Court only granted an interim stay on specific arbitrary provisions while upholding the presumption of constitutionality for the Act as a whole.

Question 2

Courts can easily halt any law passed by Parliament as soon as a PIL is filed.

Accepted Answer

Courts operate on a strict 'presumption of constitutionality' and grant interim stays only in rare cases where provisions are manifestly arbitrary or severely violate fundamental rights.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's 2025 interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act:
1. The Court stayed the provision abolishing the 'Waqf by user' doctrine, allowing unregistered Dargahs to retain their Waqf status automatically.
2. The Court stayed the power of District Collectors under Section 3C to adjudicate whether a Waqf property is government land.
3. The Supreme Court mandated that no non-Muslims can be appointed to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

(a) Only one — Statement 1 is incorrect because the Court refused to stay the prospective abolition of the 'Waqf by user' doctrine. Statement 2 is correct as the Court stayed the Collector's adjudicatory powers citing a violation of the separation of powers. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court allowed non-Muslim members but capped their numbers (maximum 4 in the Central Council, 3 in State Boards).

Question 4

Match the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 with the Supreme Court's interim action:

List I (Provision)
A. Section 3(r) - Five-year practicing Muslim requirement to create a Waqf
B. Section 3C - District Collector's power to alter revenue records for disputed Waqf land
C. Mandatory digital registration of Waqf properties
D. Abolition of 'Waqf by user' doctrine

List II (SC Action)
1. Stayed, citing violation of Separation of Powers
2. Not stayed, citing 102 years of historical precedent for registration laws
3. Not stayed, as state intervention to prevent fraudulent claims was deemed prima facie non-arbitrary
4. Stayed, pending the framing of guidelines by State Governments

Accepted Answer

(a) A-4, B-1, C-2, D-3 — A maps to 4 (The 5-year rule was stayed until states frame verification rules). B maps to 1 (Collector's powers were stayed as the executive cannot exercise judicial functions). C maps to 2 (The Court upheld mandatory registration, citing the failure to register over the past 102 years). D maps to 3 (Abolition of 'Waqf by user' was upheld to prevent misuse and arbitrary land grabs).

Question 5

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court stayed the provision of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 that empowered District Collectors to determine if a Waqf property is government land.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court held that allowing an executive officer to adjudicate property titles violates the constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Accepted Answer

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A. — The Supreme Court explicitly stayed Section 3C because entrusting a revenue officer (Executive branch) with the power to make a final determination on property titles usurps the function of Waqf Tribunals and courts (Judicial branch), directly violating the fundamental Separation of Powers.

Interim Stay on Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

India Elected to UN Human Rights Council for 2026-2028