Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday welcomed the SC's interim order on the Waqf Act, saying the spirit of the verdict was in favour of "democratic India"
NEW DELHI — Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court's interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, saying the spirit of the verdict was in favour of "democratic India" and assured that the Centre would re-examine the provision requiring five years of practising Islam for the creation of Waqf.
The apex court, in its interim order on Monday, 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.
However, a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih stayed the provision mandating five years of practising Islam for the creation of Waqf, until rules are framed.
Also read: Waqf Amendment Act 2025: SC stalls key provisions but refuses to stay entire law
Reacting to the order, Rijiju told reporters, "I am satisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court. This will benefit the poor, homeless and backwards classes of Muslims. Since the Supreme Court is the top court, it will surely have an impact. In a way, the decision has upheld the one that was made in Parliament. We will go through the provision of the practising Muslim once again."
He criticised the Opposition and those protesting the Act, asserting that challenging the authority of Parliament was not justified.
"I have not read the judgment yet; however, the spirit of the order is in favour of democratic India. Some people just unnecessarily challenge the Parliament's authority in the Supreme Court. One can challenge the provision but not the authority of the Parliament," he said.
The Supreme Court also stayed the provision that allowed a designated officer to decide whether a Waqf property encroached on government land, ruling that entrusting such powers to an executive officer would breach the principle of separation of powers.
Additionally, the court directed that until adjudication by the tribunal takes place, no third-party rights can be created against any parties involved.