Laws to be stayed in rare cases given presumption of constitutionality: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said laws have to be stayed only in “rare and exceptional" cases in which provisions were "ex-facie unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary and violate fundamental rights" of citizens.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made the observation in its 128-page verdict which stayed a few key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The provisions that were stayed include a clause that said only those practising Islam for the last five years could create Waqf. These provisions have been put on hold in the interim till the top court decides finally the validity of the newly-amended Waqf law.

The top court while passing the verdict reiterated the long-settled principle that parliamentary enactments enjoyed a strong presumption of constitutionality.

“By now, it is a settled principle of law that the courts should be very slow in granting interim relief by way of staying the provisions of an enactment. Interim relief of such a nature can be granted in rare and exceptional cases; where parties are in a position to point out that either the legislature which enacted the law lacks legislative competence or the provisions are ex-facie in violation of any of the provisions in Part III of the Constitution or constitutional principles or is manifestly arbitrary,” it said.

It referred to the 1950 Constitution bench judgment in Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and said courts have accepted the legal position that "presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles".

“It is an established position that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience, and that its discriminations are based upon adequate grounds,” it said.

Referring to another verdict, the bench said while considering the constitutionality of an enactment, it was necessary to consider its true nature and character; the area in which it intended to operate, its purport and the intent.

“It has further been held that in order to do so, it is legitimate to take into consideration all the factors such as history of the legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure and the true reason for the remedy,” it said.

It was also held that a statute enacted by Parliament or a state legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly, it said.

“In doing so, the court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under challenge cannot stand,” it said.

The bench said unless for a flagrant violation of the constitutional provisions, the law made by Parliament or a state legislature couldn't be declared invalid.

“It has also been held that in order to declare a law unconstitutional, the court has to come to a conclusion that the violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution is so evident that it leaves no manner of doubt,” it held.