The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025: A Comprehensive Analysis of Reforms, Controversies, and Implications

On April 2, 2025, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, a landmark legislation aimed at reforming the management of Waqf properties in India. The bill, which also saw the passage of the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill 2024, has sparked intense debate, with 288 members voting in favor and 232 against after a 12-hour discussion. Renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act, the bill seeks to address long-standing issues in Waqf property administration while introducing significant changes to the Waqf Act of 1995. This article provides a detailed, fact-based examination of the bill, its historical context, key provisions, criticisms, and potential impact.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Waqf in India

Waqf, derived from Islamic law, refers to the permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for religious, pious, or charitable purposes. In India, the concept dates back to the 12th century, with the first recorded Waqf established by Muhammad Ghori after his victory over Prithviraj Chauhan. The Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire further expanded Waqf properties, with rulers like Akbar and Shah Jahan endowing significant assets, including the Taj Mahal. By the British colonial era, Waqf gained a formal legal structure with the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923, followed by the Waqf Act of 1954, which established the Central Waqf Council in 1964.

Today, Waqf properties in India are vast, covering 940,000 acres across 870,000 properties, valued at ₹100,000 crore (US$11 billion), making Waqf the third-largest property holder in the country after the Indian Railways and the defense forces. However, this growth has been marred by controversies, including allegations of corruption, land grabbing, and mismanagement. A notable example is the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s claim over the predominantly Hindu village of Thiruchenthurai, including a 1,500-year-old temple, which sparked widespread outrage.

The Waqf Act of 1995 and Its Challenges

The Waqf Act of 1995 was enacted to regulate Waqf properties, empowering state-level Waqf Boards to manage these assets. However, several issues emerged over the years, as highlighted by various committees. These include unrealized revenue potential, encroachments, poor maintenance, delays in legal proceedings at Waqf Tribunals, and a lack of transparency in surveys. The 2013 amendment to the Act attempted to address some of these by defining “encroacher,” expanding Tribunal sizes, and increasing oversight of Waqf Boards, but problems persisted.

One of the most contentious provisions was Section 40, which allowed Waqf Boards to declare any property as Waqf, with decisions deemed final unless overturned by a Tribunal. This led to allegations of misuse, such as in Kerala’s Cherai village, where over 600 Christian families and a church claimed their land was wrongly designated as Waqf property, and in Haryana’s Jathlana village, where a gurdwara faced a similar claim. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, during the Lok Sabha debate, called Section 40 the “most draconian” provision, alleging it facilitated mass land conversions.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025: Key Provisions

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 8, 2024, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 underwent extensive scrutiny by a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. The JPC, comprising 21 Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members, submitted its report on February 13, 2025, incorporating 14 amendments proposed by the BJP and its allies while rejecting 44 from the opposition. The Union Cabinet approved the revised bill on February 27, 2025, and it was reintroduced as the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, passing the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2025. Below are the key changes:

1. Renaming and Objective: The bill renames the Waqf Act of 1995 as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act, aiming to enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency in Waqf property management.
2. Abolition of Section 40: The bill scraps Section 40, removing the Waqf Board’s unilateral power to declare any property as Waqf. Decisions can now be challenged in high courts within 90 days, a move Rijiju described as preventing “overnight” land conversions.
3. Waqf by User Clarification: The original bill proposed abolishing the “Waqf by user” doctrine, which recognized properties as Waqf based on long-term religious use, even without formal documentation. After JPC recommendations, the revised bill retains this status for properties registered before the law’s commencement, unless disputed or identified as government land.
4. Inclusive Representation: The bill mandates the inclusion of two Muslim women and two non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, alongside representation from Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Aghakhani, and backward Muslim communities. It also allows non-Muslims to be appointed to the Central Waqf Council and Tribunals, a shift from the earlier requirement of exclusively Muslim members.
5. Government Oversight: The bill empowers the District Collector (or a designated senior officer) to investigate disputes over government properties claimed as Waqf, replacing the Waqf Tribunal’s role in such cases. The state government can nominate members to Waqf Boards, including non-Muslims, from groups like MPs, MLAs, and Bar Council members.
6. Technology and Transparency: The bill introduces a central portal for Waqf registration, requiring all properties to be registered within six months of the law’s commencement. Courts cannot entertain suits regarding Waqf rights unless the property is registered, though Tribunals can extend this timeline for “sufficient cause.”
7. Eligibility Criteria: The bill stipulates that only individuals practicing Islam for at least five years can create a Waqf, reversing a 2013 amendment that allowed non-Muslims to do so. Critics argue this provision lacks a clear rationale and may violate Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

The Debate: Support and Opposition

The passage of the bill in the Lok Sabha was marked by a fiery 12-hour debate, reflecting deep divisions between the ruling NDA and the opposition INDIA bloc.

Support for the Bill:

• Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, who introduced the bill, emphasized that it is not about religious interference but about administrative reform. He stated, “The bill has nothing to do with the religious practice of Muslims; it only deals with the properties related to Waqf Boards.” Rijiju highlighted the inclusion of diverse Muslim sects and women in Waqf Boards, aiming to make them “inclusive and secular.”
• Union Home Minister Amit Shah dismissed opposition claims of retrospective application, clarifying that the law would take effect only after government notification. He accused the opposition of fear-mongering for vote-bank politics, saying, “Muslims are being scared, but there is no retrospective effect.”
• BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad described Waqf as a statutory body, questioning its contributions to public welfare and supporting the bill’s intent to protect Waqf properties while uplifting marginalized Muslim communities.

Opposition to the Bill:

• AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi was a vocal critic, tearing a copy of the bill during the debate and calling it an attack on Muslim rights. He argued that allowing non-Muslims in Waqf governance bodies violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious communities the right to manage their own affairs.
• Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi alleged that the bill is a “deliberate effort to dilute the Constitution,” accusing the government of defaming minorities and dividing society. Opposition MPs like DMK’s A. Raja and M.M. Abdullah branded it the “Waqf Annihilation Bill,” claiming it endangers Waqf properties.
• Trinamool Congress MPs argued that empowering the District Collector to arbitrate Waqf disputes turns the government into a trespasser, violating property laws. They insisted such disputes should remain civil matters for courts to adjudicate.
• Samajwadi Party’s Akhilesh Yadav called the bill a distraction from the government’s failures on issues like price rise and unemployment, alleging it was brought to “control votes” ahead of elections.

Controversies and Constitutional Concerns

The bill has raised several constitutional and practical concerns:

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): The requirement that a Waqf creator must have practiced Islam for five years creates a distinction without a clear public purpose, potentially violating the right to equality.
• Article 26 (Religious Autonomy): Critics argue that mandating non-Muslim representation in Waqf governance bodies infringes on the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious affairs, especially when similar laws for Hindu or Sikh endowments (e.g., Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959) restrict membership to their respective communities.
• Waqf by User Provision: While the revised bill protects existing “Waqf by user” properties, the prospective abolition of this doctrine could destabilize the legal standing of informally managed religious sites, many of which lack formal documentation.
• Procedural Issues: Opposition MPs on the JPC, including Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Arvind Sawant, alleged procedural lapses, claiming clause-by-clause discussions were not held and non-stakeholders were involved in the committee.

Potential Impact and Future Outlook

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 aims to address systemic issues in Waqf management, such as corruption, encroachments, and legal disputes, by introducing transparency and technology-driven solutions. The abolition of Section 40 and the inclusion of diverse representation are steps toward curbing misuse and ensuring inclusivity. However, the bill’s provisions on government oversight and non-Muslim involvement have sparked fears of overreach, with critics arguing it undermines Muslim autonomy.

As the bill moves to the Rajya Sabha, where the NDA lacks a majority, its passage is not guaranteed. The opposition’s dissent, coupled with protests from Muslim community leaders like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, suggests that legal challenges may follow if the bill becomes law. On the other hand, supporters argue that the reforms will benefit marginalized Muslim communities by breaking the monopoly of entrenched interests within Waqf Boards.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 represents a significant attempt to modernize the management of Waqf properties in India, addressing long-standing issues while introducing contentious changes. Its passage in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2025, marks a pivotal moment, but the debate is far from over. As India navigates the delicate balance between administrative reform and religious autonomy, the bill’s true impact will depend on its implementation and the resolution of the constitutional questions it raises. For now, it remains a polarizing piece of legislation, reflecting the complex interplay of governance, religion, and politics in a diverse nation.