New Delhi: The Congress on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order staying some provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, describing it as a “substantial victory” for the constitutional values of justice, equality, and fraternity.
“The Order is an important one because it goes a long way towards undoing the mischievous intentions underlying the original statute,” said Jairam Ramesh, Congress MP and General Secretary in-charge communications.
In a message on X, Ramesh said, “The Supreme Court’s order today on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 represents a substantial victory not just for the parties that opposed this arbitrary law in Parliament but all those members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee who submitted detailed dissent notes which were then ignored but now stand vindicated.”
Pointing to the provisions of the Act stayed by the top court, Ramesh said the intention behind these Sections was always apparent - to keep the voter base inflamed and create an administrative structure to indulge those seeking to foment religious disputes.
“We welcome this order as a win for the constitutional values of justice, equality, and fraternity,” said Ramesh.
The Congress MP said, “The counsel for the Opposition parties had argued that the law would result in the creation of a structure where anyone and everyone could challenge the status of the property before the Collector, and the status of the property would be in limbo while in such litigation. Additionally, only a ‘Muslim’ practising for 5 years could donate to a Waqf.”
Highlighting the key aspects of the apex court order, the Congress leader said that the Supreme Court stayed the powers of the Collector; protected existing Waqf properties from dubious challenges and stayed the provision requiring proof of being a Muslim for five years until such times as rules are framed.
Earlier in the day, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih declined to stay the Waqf Act in its entirety, noting that a statute carries a presumption of constitutionality and can be stayed only in the rarest of cases.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and auto-generated from an agency feed.)
