New Delhi: While the Supreme Court on Monday (September 15) stayed key provisions of the contentious Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, without staying the original statute, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi, who is one of the petitioners in the case, called the interim order unsatisfactory, and said that it will be used by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to “destroy all Waqf properties”.

The interim order passed by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice AG Masih limited on Monday (September 15) the contentious powers the new law granted to the District Collector in determining the status of a Waqf property,

In an interview with The Wire, the Owaisi, the MP from Hyderabad, said that the apex court's stay on the provision under which a person was required to be a practitioner of Islam for five years before dedicating a property to Waqf was not "complete stay."

While the court has also limited the number of non-Muslim members to four in the Central Waqf Council and three in the state Waqf Boards, Owaisi said that he had expected the legislation as a whole to be stayed and pointed to concerns that remain including the court's refusal to stay the provision under which an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected monument will not be Waqf property, cautioning that the impact will be felt in the Sambhal mosque case.  Read excerpts:

How do you see the Supreme Court’s interim order?

There are so many unconstitutional amendments that were made by the BJP government that we were hoping and expecting that it would be stayed. But, it didn't happen, so in a way, this will have an impact on the overall functioning of the waqf board functioning throughout India and it will have a negative effect.

But certain key provisions have been stayed by the court though it has not stayed the law in its entirety...

The court has put on the provision under which a person was required to be a practitioner of Islam for five years before dedicating a property to Waqf. But if you read the judgment carefully, it's not a complete stay. It says that this cannot be enforced until rules are framed providing a mechanism for determination. Now BJP will definitely create rules and the devil will lie in the details. So that is not a complete stay at all.

Our argument is that, is there such a provision for any other person who accepts another religion apart from Islam? Let us assume for the sake of argument that a person has accepted Islam. That does not stop him from giving his property to any other religious institute. But here you are providing for rules, even when there are no such rules for accepting Islam. Can the BJP ruled states give us empirical data wherein a person has accepted Islam and given his property to waqf boards?

There were two other contentious issues. One, the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards. The court has not stayed this completely, instead it has limited the number of non-Muslim members to four in the Central Waqf Council and three in the State Waqf Boards. While it did not put a stay on the provision allowing a non-Muslim to be the CEO of the State Waqf Board, the court said that as far as possible a Muslim person should be appointed.

Even here see what the Supreme Court has said. ‘As far as possible’ means that it gives a discretion to the state government. It's not mandatory that as it was before, that you have to appoint a Muslim officer. So they will say we have not found anyone capable so we are appointing whoever we want. This whole act or amendment was made with the purpose of completely controlling the waqf boards wherein even the rulemaking power is by the central government and the whole purpose is to ensure that the whole waqf structure crumbles and, and no one should give any property to the waqf and the remaining waqf which are there, it should be taken away from the Muslim community.

On the day of the debate in the Lok Sabha the government brought in about four amendments with the consent of the Speaker. This included the amendment that said that if it is an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected monument, then it will not be Waqf property. The ASI itself came into existence during British rule while the The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR) Act was made in 1958. But there are Waqf properties that are even over 300 years old.

Now you are saying it is a protected monument, so everything vests with the ASI. You are snatching away property from the waqf board. And the impact will be felt in the Sambhal case where the ASI becomes the authority and the mosque is a protected monument.

[In May, the Allahabad high court upheld a trial court’s order for a survey of the Mughal-era Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal and ruled that the suit by a group of Hindu plaintiffs seeking access to the mosque was prima facie not barred by the The Places of Worship Act, 1991.  Violence had erupted in November last year during a survey of the mosque, resulting in the deaths of four Muslim men. Earlier this month the Supreme Court ordered status quo to be maintained.]

The Act prohibits land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution from being declared or deemed to be waqf property, so what will happen to Lakshadweep Lok Sabha MP Muhammed Hamdullah Sayeed, who is also a Muslim tribal? He cannot give any property to Waqf, what happens to his freedom of religion?

The All India Muslim Personnel Board also yesterday called the order incomplete and unsatisfactory, and demanded that it should be repealed completely. Do you agree with this position?

I completely agree with that because I know that with the interim order of the Honorable Supreme Court, the BJP will destroy all Waqf properties. There should have been a list of examples which show how waqf by use was abused or misused but only one example has been given of Telangana.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report had said that a complete survey of Waqf boards had only been done in about 7 or 8 states. If the state government has not done a survey then how can the waqf board be penalised? The survey has to be done by the state governments, not by the waqf board.

If a survey is done and encroachers are found on a property, then now you are rewarding them by applying the Limitation Act, which makes him the owner of the land despite having no title.

[The Act does away with  Section 107 of the 1995 law that had made the Limitation Act, 1963 inapplicable to Waqf properties]

So basically that will lead to basically rewarding the encroachers. Because of being in the occupation of that particular property for 12 years, he automatically becomes the owner.

So, would you then say that the  order leaves more to be desired?

The AIMPLB is completely right in calling it unsatisfactory.  While they have put a stay on the Collector’s power to decide a disputed Waqf property, with the  Supreme Court rightly saying you cannot be a judge and jury in your own case, but what about other provisions? In the Ram Janmabhoomi case the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench upheld Waqf by user.  The Supreme Court has now cited the 1923 Act which required registration of a property. If the state government has not done a survey, if the waqf board has not registered, how can you take away my title?

There is also no stay on ‘Waqf-alal-aulad’ which says if a person wants to give property to Waqf, he cannot give unless he shows that he has not denied a share to his daughter. Is it there in any other religion? Why should there be such a provision because under Article 300 it is my property and I am giving it to God, Almighty Allah.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.