Indian Government Amends Waqf Act...Finally!
By Gajanan Khergamker
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, passed amid intense parliamentary debates, signals a decisive shift in the governance of Waqf properties in India. The legislation, ostensibly aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and inclusivity, has sparked polarised reactions, underscoring the delicate intersection of law, religion, and politics.
A centralised digital portal for Waqf property management is an indisputably progressive move. By automating records and enforcing mandatory audits for Waqf institutions exceeding an annual revenue of ₹1 lakh, the government aims to curb mismanagement and corruption—long-standing concerns within Waqf administration. However, the reduction of mandatory contributions from Waqf institutions to Waqf Boards from 7% to 5% appears to be a double-edged sword: while institutions will retain more revenue for charitable activities, Waqf Boards may face funding constraints, potentially hampering their ability to function effectively.
 |
| Equally significant is the increased representation for Pasmanda Muslims and women in governance |
The most contentious provision is the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf governance structures—up to four non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and three in State Waqf Boards. This marks an unprecedented departure from past practice, where Waqf institutions remained under exclusive Muslim oversight. The government defends this as a move towards secular inclusivity, but detractors argue it undermines Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious autonomy.
Equally significant is the increased representation for Pasmanda Muslims and women in governance—historically marginalised groups within the community. While this ensures broader representation, critics question whether this is a genuine reform measure or a political strategy to fragment the Muslim vote bank.
The Bill introduces a crucial provision ensuring that women receive their inheritance rights before a property is dedicated to Waqf, safeguarding their economic security. Additionally, the pre-2013 rule restoration—mandating that only practicing Muslims (for at least five years) can dedicate properties to Waqf—aims to prevent arbitrary conversions of property into Waqf holdings.
However, the removal of Section 40, which previously allowed Waqf Boards to unilaterally declare properties as Waqf, is a major shift. This amendment may significantly reduce disputes over land acquisition but could also limit the ability of Waqf institutions to reclaim historically endowed properties.
Restructuring Waqf Tribunals to include legal experts and providing for direct appeals to High Courts aims to streamline dispute resolution. However, entrusting government officials above the rank of Collector to adjudicate Waqf-related land disputes, particularly when government properties are claimed as Waqf, raises concerns of executive overreach. The potential for political interference in such determinations cannot be ignored, especially given India's fraught history of land disputes involving religious institutions.
The government, through Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, presents the Bill as an instrument of social welfare and economic justice, aligning it with other reforms like Triple Talaq abolition and the push for a Uniform Civil Code. The BJP’s narrative emphasises development over identity politics, aiming to position the party as a pro-reform, pro-poor entity for Muslim communities.
Conversely, the Congress and INDIA bloc have decried the Bill as an attack on minority rights, alleging it is designed to erode the autonomy of Muslim institutions under the guise of governance. The DMK and TMC have particularly criticised the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, highlighting that Hindu religious endowments remain exclusively Hindu-controlled.
A key question is whether the non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards withstands constitutional scrutiny under Articles 25 and 26, which safeguard the autonomy of religious institutions. Additionally, while enhanced transparency and digitisation are commendable, the risk of state overreach in Waqf administration—particularly through Collector-level adjudications—remains a legal grey area likely to be challenged in courts.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 represents an ambitious attempt to reform an opaque system, yet its success hinges on execution. If implemented fairly, the provisions on digitisation, audits, and inheritance rights could mark a progressive shift in Waqf governance. However, the Bill’s more controversial aspects, particularly non-Muslim involvement and executive control over Waqf disputes, could exacerbate communal tensions rather than foster inclusivity.
Ultimately, the Bill is a litmus test for both the government’s reformist credentials and the judiciary’s interpretation of religious autonomy in a modern democracy. Whether it emerges as a model for governance or a flashpoint for litigation remains to be seen.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
