Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Stays Waqf Act Clause Demanding 5-Year Practice of Islam

In a move with far-reaching implications for religious freedom and the secular fabric of India, the Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on a contentious provision within the Waqf Act, 1995. This significant decision targets Section 20 of the Act, which controversially mandated that any Muslim member nominated to a Waqf Board must have a minimum of five years' practice of Islam.

The ruling comes as a direct response to a legal challenge that questioned the very constitutionality of such a requirement.

A bench comprising Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the order, acting upon a plea filed by Mohd. Tariq Chaudhary. The petitioner argued vehemently that this specific condition amounted to an infringement upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

Specifically, Chaudhary contended that it violated Article 14, which ensures equality before the law, and Article 25, safeguarding the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.

The core of the petitioner’s argument revolved around the assertion that mandating five years of Islamic practice for a nominee to a statutory body like the Waqf Board creates a form of "religious profiling." This, he posited, is inherently discriminatory and goes against the foundational principles of a secular state, where citizens are to be treated equally irrespective of their religious observances or lack thereof.

The legal challenge highlighted that such a requirement could arbitrarily exclude otherwise qualified individuals based solely on their visible or demonstrable religious practice.

Adding another layer to the constitutional quandary, the Supreme Court bench also observed a potential conflict between the impugned Section 20 and Section 15 of the same Waqf Act.

Section 15 outlines the extensive functions of the Waqf Board, suggesting that its members require administrative competence and legal acumen rather than a specific duration of religious practice. This perceived inconsistency further strengthened the grounds for the interim stay, indicating the court's preliminary view that the clause might be legally problematic.

The Supreme Court has now sought detailed responses from key stakeholders, including the Central Government, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and the Central Waqf Board.

This signals the beginning of a thorough examination into the validity and necessity of Section 20. The interim stay serves as a temporary suspension, preventing the enforcement of this clause until a final judicial determination is made. This case is poised to become a landmark discussion on the intersection of religious practice, fundamental rights, and the administration of religious endowments in India.