The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Parliament in August 2024, and was subsequently referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for the purpose of examination. The JPC, consisting of 21 Members from Lok Sabha and 10 Members from Rajya Sabha under the Chairpersonship of Shri Jagdambika Pal, examined the bill, held consultations and received a total of around 97,27,772 memoranda, through both physical and digital modes. All Opposition members gave detailed dissents to the JPC report. The said JPC report, however, was tabled in the Parliament in February 2025, initially without the full Dissent Notes, thereby leading to furore which compelled the Union government to issue a corrigendum to the JPC reports with the Dissent Notes. Thereafter, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 was introduced, and after three days of intense debate, it was passed in the Lok Sabha and then the Rajya Sabha, immediately followed by presidential assent on 05.04.2025. Further, the Union government issued a notification to give effect to the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 (“the Amendment Act”) on 08.04.2025.
The Amendment Act has made significant amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995 (“the Principal Act”) by incorporating, substituting and omitting sections and provisions of the Principal Act thereby dismantling the Islamic institution of waqfs and its governance. The Amendment Act is blatantly prejudiced and constitutes a frontal attack on the Muslim community, and the religious freedom and beliefs which they enjoy under the Constitution.
Thus, the concern of civil society, in particular of the Indian Muslims, of the potential take-over of Waqf property by the government is now codified into law. There are two ways to look at the potential implications of the amendments. First, the problematic aspects of the amendments itself as infringing religious autonomy, diluting Waqf board/Tribunal powers and so on. Second, the propensity of the most anti-Muslim government in post-independence India to use seemingly innocuous provisions to either take over or exercise control over Waqf properties, either by itself or in coordination with Hindutva groups.
A closer look at the following key amendments can highlight the true intent of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, which, however, is far from what it claims to aim for – that is, efficiency, transparency, and gender equity.
Change in the name
The Amendment Act has changed the name of the law from the Waqf Act, 1995 to the “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995”. This change is justified by the Union government as necessary to “reflect its updated focus on improving the management of waqf properties, empowerment of stakeholders relevant to management of waqf properties, improving the efficiency in survey, registration and case disposal process, and development of waqf properties. While the core purpose remains to manage waqf properties, the aim is to implement modern and scientific methods for better governance”. However, there is no justification whatsoever for changing the name with the use of phrases that are cosmetic in nature. The term “Waqf” doesn’t just have a legal connotation, but it also culturally resonates with and among the Muslim community. The replacement of the term Waqf with UMEED is not just tantamount to cultural erasure, but is even contrary, for the Amendment Act has more to do with despondency than hope. Waqf is an integral part of Islamic culture and religion and the word aptly conveys its meaning whereas the new, and elaborate, name can be seen to potentially take away from the religious and charitable objectives that Waqf traditionally serves, since the Waqf system is not merely about management and development; it is about fulfilling a religious obligation to serve the community.
This demand that was made across the board to not alter the name of the Principal Act has been deliberately ignored at the cost of the religious and cultural significance of Waqf within the Muslim community.
Foundational changes to Waqf
A Waqf, literally translated to “stoppage” or “to detain” (due to its irrevocable nature), is created when a person dedicates her self-acquired or inherited movable or immovable property in the name of Allah, for charitable purposes. Waqf properties can be created for religious and charitable purposes such as for mosques, madrassas, graveyards, hospitals, universities, libraries, orphanage etc.
The Amendment Act adds additional barriers to the creation of a Waqf in the definitional clause of the Principal Act. It denies the right of a non-Muslim to create a Waqf and states that only a person who can demonstrate that he is practicing Islam for the last 5 years prior to the creation of Waqf can dedicate his property for Waqf. This is both unheard of in Islamic law and an invalid intervention in the right to property (right to dispose/alienate) under Article 300A, an invalid restriction to freedom of religion under Article 25 and is hit by the vice of arbitrariness on numerous grounds under Article 14. In that sense, the amendment also interferes with the tenets of Islam.
The Amendment to Section 36 of the Principal Act mandates the creation of a waqf deed, and registration of the same on a portal system under the control and management of the Central. This amendment applies to the creation of new waqfs; however, at the same time, it mandates the registration of older waqfs on the portal within 6 months of the amendment coming into force. Anyone having the basic idea of Waqf knows that there are Waqf properties which are hundreds of years old, and making oral Waqf part of practice. Given this, asking for the details of Waqf property is both unreasonable and disproportionate, thereby demonstrating the latent mischief of the law.
Removal of Waqf by User
Perhaps the most pernicious change the Amendment Act 2025 made is that of the removal of the concept of Waqf by user. The practice of Waqf by the user was recognized and explained by a 5-judge bench in the Babri Masjid judgment:
“1130. In some cases, courts were faced with a situation where property was used as Waqf property since time immemorial, and it was not practical to seek formal proof in the form of a deed of declaration. A specific document of dedication may be unavailable after a long lapse of time but the use of the property for public religious or charitable purposes may have continued since time immemorial. Hence, despite the absence of an express deed of dedication, where the long use of the property as a site for public religious purpose is established by oral or documentary evidence, a court can recognise the existence of a Waqf by user. The evidence of long use is treated as sufficient though there is no evidence of an express deed of dedication”
Arguably, this amendment removing Waqf by user, leaves old Waqf properties without proper documentation vulnerable to being disputed, and pushing into a zone of perpetual litigation. However, to assuage the concern of the critics, the Narendra Modi government highlighted the fact that the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has incorporated a prospective clause to the same by whereby removal of Waqf by user shall not be applicable to the already existing Waqfs. This assurance is a fig leaf, and its disingenuous premise becomes much more prominent when we read the exception attached to the prospective clause. For instance, even without Waqfs deeds, the Waqf is recognised in the list of Auqaf (Plural of Waqf), previously created by a surveyor and acknowledged by the Board. However, now, given that the prospective application has an exception of Waqf properties already in dispute, and if the Waqf is a government property., the entire logic of the prospective clause falls flat on its face.
Commentators have pointed out that similar concepts in other religious trusts/endowments continue to be recognized, such temple by user’, ‘math by user’ and ‘Hindu religious endowments by user’ found in the state legislations of Orissa, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana etc. Yet it is only the Muslim version of a charitable trust that now statutorily loses the legal recognition ‘by use’ thereby making the omission of Waqf by user discriminatory against the Muslims.
Concentration of Powers
A newly added section holds that any Government property identified as Waqf, before or after the commencement of this act, shall not be deemed to be a Waqf property. In determining whether a government property was wrongfully declared as Waqf, the amendment grants sweeping powers to the District Collector, who is a government officer, by replacing the Survey Commissioner, to conduct an inquiry and determine the status of the property. Moreover, pending inquiry the property will not be treated as a Waqf. If the District Collector finds the property to be a government property, he has the power to make a correction in revenue record, followed by confirmation by the relevant state Waqf board. Interestingly, it does not make a provision to hear affected parties to be heard, unlike all other points in the amendment, when a Waqf is being registered or being made. That concentration of broad powers in the hands of the District Collector- a government officer, determination of the nature of land by him, and the task of surveying the Waqf land without the requisite expertise, tantamount to conflict of interest and separation of power.
Till now, in cases of a dispute, the determination of whether a property is a government property or Waqf property used to happen by the Waqf Board which could be challenged in the Waqf tribunal, decisions of which, unlike the misleading impression given in the amendment (reasons given in press releases), could always be challenged before the High Court. This change, whereby the Waqf Board’s and Waqf Tribunal’s power has been reduced, is essentially taking away court jurisdiction and placing it in the hands of a District Collector In other words, a judicial function is being handed over to the executive.
Under the 1995 act the survey of Waqf properties was to be done by a government-appointed surveyor was an important step for inclusion in the list of Waqfs. The functions of the collector came into the picture for ensuring that the Waqf property was protected against encroachment. This was done by creating a list of Auqaf that the Waqf board will verify and forward the same to State government for the details of the Waqf to be reflected in the revenue records. Under the present amendment, transferring the functions of the survey commissioner to the collector. Now instead of the surveyor, the entire exercise has to be done by the already overburdened Deputy Collector. However, what is more glaring, is the outright removal of a sub-section that granted a layer of protection to Waqf properties once notified in a survey, by holding that it shall not be reviewed again except where the status of such property has been changed in accordance with any law.
Introducing Public notice Requirements
No Public notice is required in order to hear affected parties when a disputed Waqf property is declared as government property. However, it becomes mandatory when reflecting Waqf properties in revenue records (either through the survey route or direct registration). This double standard is yet another dangerous addition, thereby allowing unscrupulous individuals and groups, the Hindutva forces in particular, to interfere with Waqf registration and frustrate its entire purpose.
Infringing Autonomy and Weakening the Waqf Institutions
The amendment omits Section 40 from the Parent Act, which provided power to the Waqf Boards with respect to regulation and administration of Waqf properties. Further, it substitutes Section 9 of the Parent Act by mandating representation of non-Muslim in both the Central Waqf Council (Advisory body) and State Waqf Boards. Several commentators have argued, and rightly so, that this condition violates Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees rights to every religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. As such, there are laws in Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, etc., mandating the representation of a person professing the Hindu faith for managing Hindu Temples and their properties. Under the Bihar Endowment Act, for instance, there are provisions for three boards – the Hindu Endowment Board, Shwetambar Jain Endowment Board, and Digambar Jain Endowment Boards – and the members of these boards are mandated to be Hindus. The Gurudwara Parbhandak Committee members must also be from the Sikh community. The Waqf amendment 2025, therefore, arbitrarily reduces Muslim representation and also mandates non-Muslim representation in the administration of the Waqf.
Moreover, it entirely omits the non-obstante clause added vide the 2013 amendment, thereby weakening the very act vis-a-vis other laws. The Amendment also reduces in severity of punishment in cases of alienation of Waqf property without the sanction of the board, from rigorous imprisonment to imprisonment and omits the sub-sections making it a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Centralization of Powers
Religious endowments and institutions are listed under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, allowing both the Centre and states to legislate on the subject. This Amendment results in an increased centralization of powers in multiple ways. First, it creates a central portal system for registration of Waqfs, which is now mandatory for registration of Waqf. Second, it grants the Central government the authority to audit State Waqf boards and empowers the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to audit any Waqf at any time. Third, it permits the Central government to make rules in several significant areas of regulation of Waqfs, such as registration, publication of accounts of waqf and publication of proceedings of Waqf Boards. This would have otherwise been made by the State Government before the amendment.
Inclusion of Certain Unusual Provisions
Section 64, states the grounds on which a Mutawalli can be removed- this also includes being convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, yet another ground of removal is added; that is if the Mutawalli is a member of any association which has been declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This seems to be unique to the Waqf Act, and there seems to be no reason to include this, as the law already covers criminal conviction. The absence of the word conviction makes it ambiguous enough to remove a Mutawalli on a mere allegation.
Cumulative Effect of the Amendments
A comprehensive examination of the proposed changes to the definitions and conditions governing the creation of Waqfs reveals an intention to limit the rights of individuals to establish such endowments and to de-recognize land designated as Waqf. Adding additional hurdles to registration and recognition, from registration in the portal to permitting the public at large to object to reflecting a Waqf in Land records.
The removal of “Waqf by user”, puts at risk those Waqf which has been used as such and also those lands in respects of which documents may not exist, but which retain the character of Waqf property. Layers of protection given to existing Waqfs, have been undone, at any point, a collector can claim a Waqf is a government land, and adjudicate the same. It even reduces punishments to those that alienate recognized Waqf land. The intention seems to indicate a drive to claim Waqf land. Several amendments enable such a drive. Although the Bill claims that one of its objectives is to deal with the issue of encroachments on waqf lands, there is absolutely no change brought in this regard. Reports say that while the Waqf board is the third-largest landowner in India, widespread encroachments have reduced its control to less than 25% of its original holdings.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, under the guise of reform, institutionalizes systemic discrimination against Indian Muslims while facilitating state-sanctioned land grabbing. By restricting Waqf creation to Muslims practicing Islam for five years—a requirement absent in Hindu, Sikh, or Jain endowments—it weaponizes legal frameworks to target minorities, violating Articles 25 and 300A. The abolition of “Waqf by user” erases protections for undocumented historical Muslim properties, rendering them vulnerable to expropriation, unlike Hindu trusts retaining “user” recognition.
Concentrating power in the District Collector—a partisan executive— enables state seizure of disputed lands without due process, while centralizing oversight enables bureaucratic collusion with Hindutva forces to erase Waqf claims. Mandating non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards, contrary to faith-specific management elsewhere, dilutes institutional autonomy, paving the way for hostile takeovers. These amendments, cloaked as efficiency, expose a predatory agenda: leveraging procedural hurdles, biased inquiries, and discriminatory thresholds to legitimize majoritarian land grabs. By stripping judicial safeguards, politicizing registrations, and privileging state control over communal stewardship, the Act codifies a regime of dispossession, transforming religious endowments into sites of contested sovereignty and structural erasure.
As stated earlier, several of the amendments are prima facie unconstitutional, while others may seem innocuous (Such as public notice requirements, digitization etc), but can be used to target Waqf land. This suspicion does not arise out of thin air, but the record of this government, in directly targeting Muslims homes in vindictive demolition drives (Bulldozer Raj), top brass politicians engaging in anti-Muslim Hate speech, enabling attacks on Muslim religious places, targeting all elements of Islamic practice, i.e. Hijab, Halal certifications, Namaz in Public (even initiating criminal prosecution for mere practice of faith) and so on. This government has left no opportunity to oppress and marginalize Indian Muslims, this is merely a continuation of the same.
The Supreme Court, through its interim order dated 17 April 2025 stayed any denotification of existing Waqf properties and appointment of any non-Muslim member to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards. We hope that this stay will culminate in the quashing of this bigoted piece of legislation.
(The article was first published as AILAJ statement)
