India, Sept. 26 -- The interim order of the Supreme Court staying three key contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has been welcomed by all. The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice Augustine G Masih declined to stay the Act itself stating that the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature is presumed. The passage of the law in April raised a political storm inside and outside Parliament. It was opposed by Muslims and Opposition political parties as unconstitutional and violative of the right to religious freedom of minorities. The government insisted the Act introduced accountability, transparency, and protection from misuse to Waqf properties. Waqf is a religious charity in Islam where a person donates their property for the use of the poor and vulnerable. By this act, they irrevocably forfeit ownership of the property, which now belongs to Allah. There are approximately 850,000 waqf properties across India housing mosques, kabristans (Muslim graveyards), schools, colleges, hospitals and other collective spaces. Waqf is governed by the law of 1995, which was amended in 2013. However, several thousand properties are under dispute and litigation. Despite legal provisions and religious injunctions, there are instances of misuse and illegal encroachment. The waqf system is not uniformly managed and reform is required. But can it happen in a climate of religious polarisation and distrust? The Act was challenged by over a 100 petitioners comprising Muslim organisations, individuals and political parties. They claimed it interfered with the fundamental right granted by Article 26 of the Constitution to manage their own religious affairs. The petitioners contended that the Act enables "creeping acquisition" of waqf properties by the government. Under Section 3C of the Act, district collectors have powers to inquire whether a waqf property is actually government property. The provision states that the property would cease to be waqf the moment such an enquiry begins. Not just that, it then becomes government property by default. The section also enables the designated officer to accordingly order corrections in revenue records. Without doubt, these powers are sweeping and open to abuse. The court has stayed these provisions. It observed that entrusting revenue officials with determination of property titles was prima facie arbitrary. Besides, separation of powers is necessary to prevent conflict of interest where government functionaries are themselves judge and jury. It has further ruled that any dispute must be decided by the Waqf Tribunal followed by the high court. In what can be called a balancing act, it has also directed that no third party rights can be created pending the decision of the tribunal. There was huge opposition to the induction of members from other faiths in the governance of waqf as provided by the Act. The court has taken a progressive stance and not outrightly overruled this. It has put a cap on the number of non-Muslims to be included. It ordered that out of 22 members of the Central Waqf Council, a maximum four can be non-Muslims. State Waqf boards with 11 members each can have three non-Muslim members. Can a similar framework be adopted for all religious institutions? Such a move can truly uphold the secularism enshrined in our Constitution. With this, the court may have initiated a step towards a Uniform Civil Code in future. The Act provided that waqf can be created only by a "person showing or demonstrating that he is practicing Islam for at least five years". The petitioners challenged this as arbitrary and discriminatory. The court has stayed this provision with a caveat which is problematic. The stay will remain in effect till the government frames rules and mechanisms about determining how a person's religious practice can be ascertained. Now, the government will decide who is a Muslim; mere statements by citizens would not be enough! This can open a Pandora's Box of harassment for the community. The court refused to stay the omission of "waqf by user" from the Act. This age-old principle reflects the ground reality of some genuine waqf properties. Waqf by user applies to land used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes for a long time even if it was not formally registered. Several mosques and shrines, all deemed as waqf, have existed for centuries without any documents or registration. The petitioners strongly argued that this would lead to take-over of such land by the State. The government on its part argued that this was enabling encroachment upon government land. However, this provision does not apply with retrospective effect and all new waqfs will have to be registered within the stipulated time limit. The bench reiterated that this was an interim order and the parties are free to further pursue remedies. The order has provided relief to the petitioners and also upheld the law per se. It may have calmed passions for now, but has not fully doused the possibilities of future fires. Religious divisiveness has grown, with serious consequences for minority communities, which has fed distrust. Reform in waqf is necessary to enable the poor and needy to benefit as intended. Those fancying themselves as leaders of the community must understand the need for genuine reform. Perhaps they can learn from other communities, particularly Christians, who manage their community institutions brilliantly. Let me end on a hopeful note. Hooghly College, established under Haji Mohsin Waqf in 1836, is a shining example of pursuit of education for the benefit of the community. It counts Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya and dozens of well-known others as its alumni. Affiliated to Burdwan University, it continues to educate thousands of students from all communities. There is a need for all communities to learn from such experiences....