Centre opposes 'interim stay' on Waqf Act in SC, calls it 'violation of the Constitution'

The Centre on Friday strongly opposed any interim stay—partial or complete—on the newly introduced Waqf laws, stating that such a move by the Supreme Court would go against the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. The government argued that laws passed by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality and should not be stayed while challenges are under consideration.

Presenting its stand before the apex court, the government said, “Courts cannot stay statutory provisions directly or indirectly. An interim stay would be violative of the Constitution’s doctrine of balance of power.” It further emphasized that the Waqf law was enacted after extensive discussions in both houses of Parliament, based on the recommendations of a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

The law under contention mandates that non-Muslim members be included in the Central Waqf Council and state-level Waqf boards. It also states that donations can only be accepted from practicing Muslims. These provisions have drawn criticism and legal challenges, with petitioners arguing that the law violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing five consolidated petitions from an initial batch of nearly 200 that questioned the constitutional validity of the new provisions. In previous hearings, the court had acknowledged the violent fallout of the law, including reported deaths in West Bengal and clashes in Lucknow, and had considered granting an interim stay. However, it deferred the decision after the government requested time to respond.

During the latest hearing, the government underlined that no individual injustice was cited in the petitions to warrant urgent judicial protection through interim relief. This, it said, further reinforced the need to avoid halting the law’s implementation prematurely.

Despite rejecting the idea of a stay, the government did provide some assurance to the court: there would be no Waqf appointments or changes in the status of disputed Waqf properties until further notice. This assurance, the government hopes, will balance public concerns while allowing the court to fully deliberate on the matter.