⚖️ Background
The Supreme Court of India has recently refused to grant a stay on a provision of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 that bars the declaration of protected monuments as waqf properties. The decision reinforces that monuments protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) cannot be claimed as waqf.
📌 What the Court Said
- The Court noted that monuments and heritage sites notified as protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 are public properties of national importance.
- Such monuments are maintained by public funds and serve as part of the country’s cultural heritage.
- Since these are already notified as protected sites, they cannot simultaneously be treated as private or religious property under waqf laws.
- The Court stated that allowing such claims would create confusion over ownership and hinder conservation efforts.
⚖️ Legal Context
- The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 introduced a specific provision clarifying that no property declared as a centrally protected monument under the ASI can be treated as waqf property.
- Several petitions had challenged this provision, claiming it curtailed the rights of waqf boards, but the Supreme Court has refused to stay this part of the law.
- The Court observed that the amendment was brought to remove overlapping claims and protect heritage sites from ownership disputes.
📍 Impact of the Ruling
- The ruling provides legal clarity that once a property is declared as a protected monument, it is no longer open to ownership claims under waqf laws.
- It will help the ASI safeguard historical monuments without litigation over their ownership.
- It also signals that heritage conservation takes precedence over religious or private ownership claims.
✅ Conclusion
This ruling by the Supreme Court marks a significant step in protecting India’s cultural heritage. By upholding the provision of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Court has ensured that protected monuments will remain national assets free from private or religious ownership disputes. This decision strengthens the legal framework for preserving monuments of historical and archaeological importance for future generations.
