An Analysis of the WAQF (Amendment) Act, 2025

ABSTRACT

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, portrays a watershed moment in the governance of Waqf properties in India. It introduces comprehensive changes under the stated aim of enhancing transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the governing system. However, the Act has sparked widespread debates and constitutional scrutiny alleging its undermining character as to religious autonomy and secular character of the nation. The major changes include the abolition of ‘waqf by user’, integration of non-Muslim members in Waqf boards, alteration of tribunals, enhanced powers to government officials, among others. The Act raises questions over the constitutional guarantee under Article 26, which allows religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The critics argue that it erodes the rights of minorities and the institutional autonomy of communities, while the final adjudication awaits.

Key Words: Waqf, Amendment, Rights, Minority, Constitutionality

INTRODUCTION

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as passed on 5 April 2025, renamed the Waqf Act, 1995 as the United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UWMEED, or more commonly known as UMEED) Act. 

In India, the first Waqf Act was introduced in the year 1913 as the Musalman Waqf Validating Act, which was followed by the Waqf Act of 1954 and 1995, further amended in 2013. According to Muslim Law, waqf is the transfer of property, either movable or immovable, for religious, philanthropic or pious causes. A property once declared as waqf, becomes inalienable and cannot be returned. The waqf properties in India are regulated by the Waqf Board established under the Waqf Act of 1995. Each state has its own board which oversees the waqf properties in the state. 

The Waqf Act was subjected to several amendments between 1913 to 1995. However, the 2025 Amendment has caused a significant deal of political and constitutional dispute. It has been accused as infringing on the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the advocates of the Act claim that it would promote accountability and transparency in the management of waqf properties in India.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ACT

• Removal of ‘Waqf by User’-

This can be considered as the most impactful amendment of the Act. This means that those properties which were traditionally recognized as Waqf by virtue of their long-term public use for religious or charitable purposes without any formal documentation, may lose their legal acknowledgement. This amendment has raised significant concerns as to the fate of thousands of historical endowments, which could lead to a loss of substantial amount of property belonging to the Muslim community.

•  Mandate of Five-year Practice- 

 The amended Act includes a provision that a waqf creator must be a practitioner of Islam for at least five years. This compulsion is indicative of the exclusion of non-Muslims from the category of ‘Waqif’, which means the creator of waqf or a person declaring his land as waqf.

• Composition of the Governing Bodies-

The Act has also substantially altered the composition of Waqf governance bodies. It mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim members in both the Central Waqf Council (2 out of 22 members) and State Waqf Boards (2 out of 11members), and further permits the MPs, former judges, and eminent persons appointed to these bodies to be non-Muslims. The Act also includes representation from various Muslim sects like Shias and Sunnis, women and backward classes for inclusivity. Nevertheless, the presence of non-Muslims on boards overseeing a community-specific religious endowment has been a point of contention. 

• Composition of Waqf Tribunals-

Another critical change brought by the Act is the restructuring of the Tribunals. The amendment has negated the requirement for a Muslim law expert in the composition of the Tribunal, replacing them with a current or former joint secretary to the state government. It also incorporates a current or former District Judge as the Chairperson of the Tribunal. Furthermore, the provisions that previously deemed Tribunal decisions final have been omitted by the Act, allowing appeals to the High Court. These changes potentially reduce the specialized religious legal expertise in dispute resolution and have subjected the Tribunal decisions to broader judicial review.

• Government Interference-

The amendment has significantly increased the powers of both the Central and State Governments. It has empowered the Central government to make rules regarding registration, publication of accounts, and proceedings, and to mandate audits of Waqf accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). In addition, State governments have been empowered to nominate the members of the board, including non-Muslims. Critically, it has replaced the Survey Commissioner with the District Collectors, empowering them to conduct surveys and determine the status of properties, particularly where formal documentation is lacking.

• THE AFTERMATH

The waqf bill stimulated huge chaos and protests across India, including major cities like Ahmedabad, Kolkata, and Chennai, as the Muslim representatives raised their high concerns regarding several clauses incorporated under the new waqf bill. They advocated that the new bill was a clear violation of their fundamental right of religion guaranteed in the Constitution. Further, the Act was merely aimed at reducing the status of Muslims as the “second-class” citizens. The state of Bihar witnessed large scale protests witnessing a rally organized by the Imarat-e-Shariah in Patna. 

The Act witnessed huge backlash and criticism since it was passed. It is alleged to threaten the community and religious rights of Muslims as it violates Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. After the Bill received presidential assent, a record number of over 65 petitions from politicians, civil organizations and advocates were filed at the Supreme Court challenging the Act. The petitioners included Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi from All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan; The Association for the Protection of Civil Rights; Arshad Madani of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind; Congress leaders Imran Masood and Udit Raj; Manoj Kumar Jha of the RJD; Mahua Moitra of the TMC; the Indian Union Muslim League; the Communist Party of India; Mohammad Salim of the CPI (Marxist); Shia cleric Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi; and Anjuman-E-Islam among others.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT

In lieu of the several petitions, the Supreme Court delved into the question of constitutionality of the Act exercising its original jurisdiction. 

In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, the Apex Court on September 15, 2025 refused to stay the entire Act, reasoning that presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature. Nevertheless, the court stayed several key contentious provisions of the Act such as the five-year practice rule, citing concerns about arbitrary power and separation of powers, while balancing government control with community rights. The court pronounced this judgment on a plea to stay the implementation of the Act, which was described by the petitioners as a “creeping acquisition” of Muslim properties. The government advocated it as a necessary counter to “rampant encroachment” on public and private properties. Further, the Court also clarified that its refusal to stay the entire statute and observations made in the judgment would not mar the rights of the parties to pose a subsequent comprehensive challenge against the entire Amendment Act or its provisions.

CONCLUSION

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 appears to supersede the fringes of administrative enhancement, although the imperative for reform in Waqf administration is indisputable, owing to concerns over mismanagement and underutilization. The provisions such as the removal of ‘Waqf by user,’ the necessary inclusion of non-Muslims in governance bodies, and the alarmingly enhanced powers of state officials, venture beyond mere administrative efficiency. Indeed, it encroaches upon areas that circumscribes religious autonomy and community control. This legislative approach endangers the very spirit of Waqf as a community-specific religious endowment. 

Any effort to bring reforms must be guided by genuine consultation with the affected community, in addition to its confidence. The urge to improve governance of Waqf properties should prioritize the strengthening of internal management mechanisms, facilitating the efficient digitization of records without leading to the deprivation of historical properties, and empowering Waqf Boards with requisite resources and autonomy to manage their affairs effectively. Any such change must scrupulously uphold the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affair. Therefore, the awaited final adjudication of the Supreme Court upon the constitutionality of the Act has a potential to redefine the labyrinthine relationship between the state and the religious institutions within the secular framework of the country.

REFERENCES

1. 1. The Constitution of India, arts. 25, 26.
   2. Vandana Kumari, “Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: A Constitutional Analysis of Religious Freedom and Minority Rights”, Vol V, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 13 (2025).
   3. Apoorva, “Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling Explained”, SCC Online (2025).
   4. The Waqf Act, 1995 (Act No. 43 of 1995).
   5. Constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Supreme Court Observer, available at: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/constitutionality-of-the-waqf-amendment-act-2025-asaduddin-owaisi-v-union-of-india/ (last visited on January 11, 2026).
   6. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, available at: https://minorityaffairs.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTF1984/1743763149.pdf  (last visited on January 11, 2026).