The recent approval of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 by the Indian Parliament has sparked mass protests across the country, with opposition parties contending that the bill violates the rights of the Muslim community and crushes the independence of waqf properties. The bill, introduced by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, aims to make drastic changes to the management of Muslim charitable trusts, or waqfs.
Key Provisions and Arguments Against the Bill
Here’s a breakdown of the most controversial elements of the bill and the arguments being made against them:
1. Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards
The bill allows for the appointment of non-Muslim members to state and central waqf boards. Critics argue this undermines the Islamic foundation of waqf institutions, which are religious endowments governed by Islamic jurisprudence.
Opponents believe that religious bodies should be managed by followers of the faith to preserve religious sanctity and prevent external political influence.
2. Government Empowerment Over Disputed Waqf Properties
The bill empowers the government to decide on ownership in cases of disputed waqf properties. Critics claim this gives the state unchecked authority and opens a path to potential confiscation of religious land under the pretext of administrative disputes.
Activists have warned that such power could be used selectively to target waqf land for “urban development” or political retribution.
3. Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’
The amendment removes the long-standing recognition of properties as waqf based on continuous community use — such as centuries-old mosques, graveyards, or shrines not formally registered.
This could strip many such properties of their waqf status, making them vulnerable to takeover, demolition, or sale by authorities. Community leaders argue this erases historical religious identity tied to public memory and tradition.
4. Greater Central Government Oversight
The bill increases the central government’s role in waqf administration, reducing the autonomy of state waqf boards.
Critics view this as centralization of power in a matter that is religious and state-specific, potentially allowing the government to override local concerns and priorities.
5. Removal of Legal Immunity for Waqf Officials
Under the new bill, waqf board officials can face penalties for administrative lapses, including criminal prosecution. While intended to curb corruption, community leaders argue that this could be used to harass or intimidate Muslim officials working with limited resources.
The fear is that it will discourage qualified individuals from taking leadership roles in waqf management.
6. Fast-Tracking of Evictions and Reclassification of Waqf Land
Another controversial provision allows the government to fast-track evictions from waqf land considered “encroached” without lengthy court processes.
Activists argue that in many cases, these lands have been used for decades by the community for religious or public purposes and that reclassifying them as encroachments is unjust.
7. Lack of Wider Consultation
Opposition parties and Muslim organizations claim the bill was passed in Parliament without proper consultation with religious scholars, community leaders, or legal experts on Islamic law.
They see it as a top-down imposition that ignores the voices of the very communities it affects.
Opposition parties and Muslim communities argue that the amendments violate constitutional rights by making provision for arbitrary restrictions on waqf property and management, and undermining religious freedom of the Muslim community.
Protests and Legal Challenges
Since the bill was passed, mass protests have erupted in major cities like Ahmedabad, Kolkata, and Chennai. Demonstrators, led by various Muslim groups and opposition parties, are demanding the revocation of the law, viewing it as an infringement on religious freedom and minority rights.
Legal Action against the bill:
- Congress Party: The General Secretary of the Congress Party, Jairam Ramesh, has made statements over filing a case in the Supreme Court against the bill’s constitutional validity since it contradicts the pillars of the Indian Constitution.
- AIMIM: Party leader Asaduddin Owaisi approached the Supreme Court by seeking a petition challenging that the bill is “hostile discrimination” against Muslims as well as strips waqf institutions of the autonomy they operate with.
Potential Consequences of the Supreme Court’s Decision
- If Upheld: The state would gain more control over waqf properties, and this would have the potential for reclassification or confiscation of certain properties. This step would set a precedent for state interference in religious endowments and thus affect the management of similar institutions in various communities.
- If Overturned: A decision against the bill would reinforce the protection of minority rights and the autonomy of religious institutions, limiting governmental authority over waqf properties. Such an outcome could also influence future legislative attempts to regulate religious endowments, ensuring they align with constitutional safeguards for religious freedoms.