The Supreme Court of India on September 15, 2025, gave a significant verdict upholding the Union government's decision to abolish the concept of "waqf by user" under the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. This move came after the court observed widespread misuse of the "waqf by user" provision to illegitimately claim vast tracts of government land as waqf property. The bench, led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justice AG Masih, ruled that this amendment aimed to address the serious issue of government land encroachments under the guise of waqf claims and could not be dismissed as arbitrary.

The "waqf by user" principle allowed properties to be declared waqf based on long-standing community or religious use without formal documentation. While this was a practice accepted historically, recent misuse saw government properties, including hundreds or thousands of acres, being declared waqf by certain boards, notably in Andhra Pradesh. The court referenced cases like the quashing of Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board's claims over government land, making clear the legislature acted prudently to counter such encroachments.

Despite upholding the removal of "waqf by user," the court emphasized that this change applies only prospectively, protecting legitimate waqf properties created before the Act's enforcement date in April 2025. This safeguard prevents a wholesale and retrospective seizure of community properties. The court also refrained from putting a blanket stay on the entire amended Waqf Act but did temporarily halt certain other contentious provisions, such as those giving district collectors administrative powers to alter waqf land status before judicial decisions. It stressed the importance of preserving the principle of separation of powers, asserting that property rights can only be conclusively determined through judicial or quasi-judicial processes.

The ruling touched on the composition of waqf boards, setting limits on non-Muslim participation while encouraging Muslim leadership in waqf administration, attempting to balance inclusivity and minority rights concerns. It also upheld protections for waqf properties that are protected monuments or belong to Scheduled Tribes, citing existing laws and constitutional mandates.

This verdict reflects India's judiciary striving to balance protecting religious endowments and public property interests while preventing misuse of waqf laws. The abrogation of "waqf by user" aims to close a loophole exploited to claim government lands unlawfully, an issue that had grown widespread and contentious. Yet, the court's nuanced approach preserves legitimate religious trusts and endowments, ensuring fair legal processes govern disputes over waqf lands.

This means government lands cannot be hijacked by simply claiming religious use without formal waiver or documentation. It strengthens governance and accountability in waqf administration and protects public assets from unlawful encroachment while respecting religious freedoms and historical endowments where properly documented. Website readers interested in legal reforms affecting religious properties and land disputes will find this ruling a landmark development in India’s efforts to regulate waqf lands more transparently and justly, curbing misuse without undermining rightful community assets. It also underlines the importance for waqf boards and users to maintain clear legal records and deeds to sustain their claims in the future.

This case demonstrates how law reforms and judicial oversight work collectively to resolve complex issues that straddle religion, public property, and governance—ensuring no community's rights are trampled upon, but neither are public resources compromised. News websites covering legal, political, or social affairs may highlight how this judgment sets a precedent for addressing historical property claims under religious laws while emphasizing the necessity for formal legal documentation and due process under Indian law. The Supreme Court's approach balances preventing fraudulent land claims using waqf laws with safeguarding legitimate religious endowments, thereby upholding public interest and minority rights simultaneously.