Dr. Fayaz Ahmad Wani
On April 5, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, transforming it into law after heated debates in both houses of Parliament. Heralded by the Modi government as a transformative reform to modernize the management of waqf properties, this legislation has ignited a firestorm of controversy. For India’s Muslim community, numbering over 200 million, it represents not just a shift in property governance but a profound challenge to religious autonomy, constitutional protections, and the very ethos of pluralism that defines the nation. As protests erupt across cities and legal battles loom in the Supreme Court, the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 stands at a crossroads—one that could reshape the legal and social landscape for generations.
A Legislative Overhaul: What’s New?
The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, now officially titled the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act, 1995, amends the Waqf Act of 1995 with sweeping changes:
– Centralized Oversight: A national portal under the Central Waqf Council will digitize and regulate waqf property records, stripping autonomy from state-level boards.
– Inclusion of Non-Muslims: The Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards must now include two non-Muslim members and two women, a move framed as promoting diversity but decried as diluting religious control.
– Enhanced Executive Powers: The government can audit, annul, or redirect waqf board decisions, with district collectors empowered to investigate property disputes.
– Easier Acquisition: Simplified procedures allow government acquisition or redevelopment of waqf lands, invoking eminent domain with fewer hurdles.
– Penal Provisions: Non-compliance by trustees or mutawallis (caretakers) now carries criminal penalties, including jail terms and fines.
– Five-Year Rule: A contentious clause mandates that only individuals practicing Islam for at least five years can dedicate property as waqf, raising questions about enforcement and intent.
The government touts these reforms as a remedy to longstanding issues—corruption, mismanagement, and the staggering 73,000 disputed waqf properties out of an estimated 8.8 lakh nationwide, spanning 6 lakh acres valued at ₹10–12 lakh crore. Yet, beneath the rhetoric of efficiency lies a deeper tension: a clash between state control and religious freedom.
Constitutional Fault Lines
Legal scholars and activists argue that the Act treads perilously close to violating India’s constitutional framework:
1. Article 26 Under Siege: This article guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs. The inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf governance and the shift to centralized control are seen as direct assaults on this right. As the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) contends in its Supreme Court petition, “The amendments reveal the government’s intent to sideline Muslims from managing their own endowments.”
2. Equality and Non-Discrimination (Articles 14 and 15): Critics, including AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, argue that the Act discriminates by imposing restrictions on waqf properties absent in Hindu, Sikh, or Christian endowments. “This is hostile discrimination,” Owaisi’s plea to the Supreme Court asserts, echoing sentiments on X where users decry the law as “anti-Muslim.”
3. Due Process and Liberty (Article 21): The penal provisions and discretionary executive powers lack robust safeguards, risking arbitrary enforcement. Legal expert P. Wilson, representing the DMK in its Supreme Court challenge, calls it “a drastic overhaul that undermines procedural fairness.”
4. Federalism at Risk: Waqf boards fall under state jurisdiction per the Seventh Schedule, yet the Act amplifies the Central Waqf Council’s role, prompting accusations of overreach. The DMK’s resolution in Tamil Nadu’s Assembly on March 27, 2025, urged the Union to withdraw the bill, reflecting this concern.
Judicial precedents amplify these worries. In *S.P. Mittal v. Union of India* (1983) and *Sri Adi Visheshwara v. State of U.P.* (1997), the Supreme Court upheld minimal state interference in religious institutions absent compelling evidence of mismanagement. The Waqf Act’s broad executive sweep appears to flout this doctrine, inviting judicial scrutiny.
Eminent Domain or Encroachment?
The Act’s facilitation of waqf property acquisition has sparked outrage, particularly over its implications for historic mosques, dargahs, and graveyards—many lacking formal documentation due to centuries-old oral traditions. The government invokes eminent domain, citing public purpose under Article 300A, as affirmed in K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka(2011). Union Home Minister Amit Shah defends this, arguing, “The money from leased properties, meant for minority development, is being stolen.”
Yet, waqf properties are not mere real estate; they are perpetual endowments rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, dedicated to charity and worship. Alienating them risks breaching the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the secular fabric enshrined in the Constitution’s basic structure. Protesters in Kolkata, Chennai, and Ahmedabad on April 4, wielding banners like “Reject Waqf Bill,” echo this sentiment, fearing state-enabled encroachment on sacred spaces.
A Nation Divided: Protests and Politics
The Act’s passage—288 votes for and 232 against in the Lok Sabha, 128 to 95 in the Rajya Sabha—unleashed a torrent of dissent. In Manipur, a mob torched the home of BJP Minority Morcha president Asker Ali on April 6, allegedly for supporting the bill. In Kolkata’s Park Circus, thousands rallied post-Friday prayers, branding it “anti-Muslim.” X posts reflect this fury: one user questioned, “Who certifies a ‘practicing Muslim’?” while another warned of a “precedent to target other communities.”
Opposition parties, from Congress to TMC, have vowed to fight back. Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, filing the first Supreme Court plea on April 4, called it a “brazen assault” on minority rights. AAP’s Amanatullah Khan and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind followed suit, alleging a “dangerous conspiracy” to strip religious freedom. Meanwhile, the BJP insists the Act is prospective, not retroactive, aimed at transparency—a claim protesters dismiss as hollow.
Judicial Reckoning Looms
With 13 petitions already before the Supreme Court as of April 7, 2025, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna has promised a hearing “in due course.” Grounds for review include:
– Infringement of fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 300A).
– Excessive delegation of unchecked power to the executive.
– Lack of proportionality in penalties and oversight.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) under Article 226 (High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court) are inevitable. If struck down, the Act could join the annals of overturned laws; if upheld, it may embolden further state intervention in minority affairs. The judiciary, as “sentinel on the qui vive,” faces a defining test.
A Call for Dialogue Over Decree
The Waqf Act’s flaws stem not from its intent—reform is needed—but its execution. Corruption and encroachments plague waqf properties, yet the solution lies in empowering, not dismantling, community governance. Legal scholars like Prof. Faizan Mustafa of Chanakya National Law University argue, “Waqf is highly regulated; this bill tightens control further without necessity.” A democratic process—consulting waqf boards, religious leaders, and civil society—could have tempered the backlash. Instead, its rushed passage, culminating in late-night Rajya Sabha voting on April 4, reeks of majoritarian haste.
Conclusion: A Test of India’s Soul
The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 is more than a legal reform; it is a mirror to India’s constitutional conscience. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the nation watches: Will it safeguard pluralism and minority rights, or pave the way for a homogenized state? For India’s Muslims, the stakes are existential—their mosques, their graveyards, their faith hang in the balance. The battle is just beginning.
XOXO XOXO
Dr. Fayaz Ahmad Wani is a PhD scholar and seasoned academic with over 20 years of experience as a lecturer in various degree colleges across Jammu and Kashmir. Currently serving as a circulation manager with a local daily, he is also a prolific author, with works including Torch Bearers, Translation of Surah Al-Fatihah, and Political Suicides and Murders in the Twentieth Century.
Contact: wanifayazahmad68@gmail.com.
