As per case facts...A batch of writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of several provisions of the newly enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The challenge was broad, arguing that the ... amendments violated fundamental rights, particularly concerning religious freedom and property rights of the Muslim community, by changing the definition of 'Waqf', deleting 'Waqf by User', providing for the unilateral declaration of Waqf property as 'Government property', and altering the composition of Waqf boards to possibly include a majority of non-Muslim members. The petitioners sought an interim stay on the entire Act. The question arose...whether the petitioners had made a strong prima facie case of constitutional transgression, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights to warrant an interim stay on the operation of the entire Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, pending final hearing. Finally...the Supreme Court rejected the prayer to stay the entire Act, reaffirming the presumption of constitutionality for legislation. However, the Court granted an interim stay on specific provisions that were prima facie found arbitrary: 1) the requirement for a person to demonstrate a 5-year practice of Islam to create a Waqf (until rules are framed); 2) the provision allowing the unilateral change of Waqf property records to Government property status before judicial determination (Section 3C(2) proviso, and Sections 3C(3) & 3C(4)); and 3) restricting the number of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council to 4 and in the State Waqf Boards to 3.