The Supreme Court judgment in the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 makes a point that a statute, however well-intentioned but couched in “prima facie arbitrary” provisions, cannot be used to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to property without due process of law.The Court’s zero tolerance to legislative arbitrariness is apparent in its decision to stay the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3C of the 2025 Amendment Act.The proviso embodied arbitrariness by denuding a Waqf property of its status the moment someone alleges it to be an encroachment on a government property. The proviso is silent on whether prior notice or an opportunity for hearing would be granted to the manager of the Waqf or Mutawalli before the freeze is imposed on the property.Also read: What are the key changes proposed in the new Waqf Bill? | ExplainedSecondly, once the Waqf is frozen, a designated officer of the government would be assigned to conduct an inquiry into whether the property concerned was government or not — “provided that such property shall not be treated as Waqf property till the designated officer submits his report”.Editorial | ​Law of the land: on the judiciary and waqf amendmentsThe amended statute does not contain any timelines or fix a reasonable period for the probe. The officer could drag it on endlessly, leaving the Waqf, which may consist of schools, hospitals and charitable institutions, “high and dry”, maybe for years together.Again, Section 3C(3) of the Amended Waqf Act empowers the designated government officer, ranked above District Collector, to determine the title of the property, which is strictly a function of a competent court or tribunal with room for appeal to the higher courts. The statute is again mum on whether the aggrieved Waqf management or its representative would be given a fair opportunity to be heard during the inquiry.To make matters worse, the proviso allows the officer to change the revenue records, thus altering the status of a Waqf property into a government asset, paving the way for fait accompli if the Waqf management takes the litigation route in future. Moreover, Section 3C(4) clothed the State Government, after the officer submits the inquiry report determining the property as a government one, with power to instruct the State Waqf Board to delete the property from their records.The Court found the proviso “totally unconstitutional” and prima facie arbitrary. Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, who wrote the judgment, termed the entire process of depriving Waqfs of their status and valuable properties “unilateral”. The judgment said the process, with no means for a judicial application of mind, amounted to an encroachment into the Courts’ domain and a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, which is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.Staying the implementation of the proviso of Section 3C(2) and its sub-sections (3) and (4), the judgment held that the status of the Waqf property would remain intact till the dispute is finally decided by a Waqf Tribunal in proceedings, subject to further orders of the State High Court. The management would neither be dispossessed of the Waqf property nor any changes made in the revenue of Waqf Board records.On the other hand, the Mutawalli was also barred by the Court from alienating the property any time between the commencement of the inquiry and the final decision by the Tribunal. This balances the right. The public, after all, cannot fall prey or suffer loss if the Waqf property was indeed proved to be an encroachment on public land.Watch: Waqf bill | Who supports it, who are opposing it?