ARTICLES (ENGLISH)

The Waqf 2025 Bill in India: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

Waqf (or wakf) refers to a permanent endowment of property by a Muslim for a religious, pious or charitable purpose under Islamic law ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ) (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). Once a property is designated as waqf, it is considered to “belong to God,” making it inalienable and meant to serve the community perpetually (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). India has one of the largest collections of waqf assets in the world – an estimated wealth of over $14 billion in land and properties (Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill | Religion News | Al Jazeera). These waqf properties include mosques, dargahs (shrines), graveyards, schools, shops and large tracts of land endowed over centuries. To regulate and manage this vast endowment, the government enacted laws like the Waqf Act of 1995, which established Waqf Boards and tribunals in each state. In 2025, a major amendment to this law was introduced – commonly referred to as the Waqf 2025 Bill – marking the most sweeping reform of waqf governance in decades. The Bill was passed by Parliament in April 2025 after extensive debates (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row), and it proposes significant changes in how waqf properties are administered, leading to intense public discourse and legal scrutiny.

(Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill | Religion News | Al Jazeera) Muslim community members protesting against the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024 at a mosque in Punjab. The Bill’s introduction sparked demonstrations and a flurry of legal challenges from various groups concerned about its impact on religious endowments. (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times)

The Waqf 2025 Bill has provoked a heated nationwide debate. Proponents – including the government and some reformist voices – argue that the amendments will modernize waqf management, increase transparency, and curb abuses in the system (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times) (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera). Critics – including many Muslim community leaders, opposition parties, and even some Hindu petitioners – claim that certain provisions violate constitutional principles and minority rights, potentially enabling state interference in religious affairs (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Dozens of petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bill’s constitutionality, leading the Court to examine the law and even pause parts of its implementation pending a final decision (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). In this booklet, we provide a balanced analysis of the Waqf 2025 Bill. We will summarize its key features and changes, review the historical context of waqf laws and administration in India, examine the constitutional issues at stake, and discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of the Bill. Perspectives from legal experts, community leaders, policy analysts, and constitutional scholars are included to ensure a well-rounded understanding. Throughout, we cite authoritative sources – official reports, news analyses, and expert commentaries – to present an unbiased, comprehensive picture of this important legislation.

Key Features of the Waqf 2025 Bill

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (widely referred to as the Waqf 2025 Bill after its passage in 2025) introduces a number of significant reforms to the Waqf Act, 1995. These changes aim to “expand the government’s role in regulating waqf properties and adjudicating disputes” (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row), ostensibly to improve accountability and efficiency. Below is a summary of the key features and proposed changes introduced by the Bill:

• Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Bodies: The Bill alters the composition of Waqf Boards (state-level bodies) and the Central Waqf Council by mandating the inclusion of non-Muslim members (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Under the 1995 Act, these bodies were composed exclusively of Muslims (since waqf is an Islamic endowment). The amendment not only requires a minimum number of non-Muslim members, but permits non-Muslims to form a majority in these institutions (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). For example, a State Waqf Board that was previously 100% Muslim can now have up to 7 out of 11 members from other faiths (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Similarly, the Central Waqf Council (chaired by the Union Minority Affairs Minister) could have 12 of its 22 members be non-Muslim (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The Bill also removes the prior requirement that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of each State Waqf Board must be a Muslim; going forward, the CEO can be of any religion (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). According to the government, these steps are meant to introduce diversity and professional expertise into waqf institutions, akin to how secular trusts operate ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). However, as discussed later, this change is one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill.
• Restructuring Waqf Boards and Council: In addition to adding non-Muslim members, the Bill changes how members of Waqf Boards are appointed. It eliminates the election of members from the Muslim community (Muslim MPs, MLAs, Islamic scholars, etc.) and instead provides that all members will be nominated by the government (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The state government gains the power to appoint even those members who were earlier elected by the community. The Bill does retain the requirement of at least two women on every Waqf Board, but specifies that these be Muslim women (there is no gender quota for the non-Muslim members) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). In summary, State Waqf Boards will shrink slightly in size (to 11 members maximum) and be fully appointed by the government, with a mix of Muslim and non-Muslim members, whereas previously they were larger bodies composed entirely of Muslims with a combination of elected and appointed members (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024).
• Survey and Certification of Waqf Properties by District Collector: The Bill significantly changes the process of surveying and certifying waqf properties. Under the 1995 Act, a Survey Commissioner (an official appointed to identify and list waqf properties) would survey all waqf estates in a state. The amendment replaces the Survey Commissioner with the District Collector (the top government administrative officer in each district) as the authority to conduct surveys of waqf properties (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). This effectively centralizes the power at the district level and ties it directly into the general administration. Crucially, the Bill provides that if any government-owned property had been erroneously recorded as waqf, it “will cease to be waqf” (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The Collector is empowered to determine the ownership of such disputed properties. In practical terms, this means that properties claimed by government agencies (for example, railways, public parks, or other departments) cannot be unilaterally appropriated as waqf – the government’s title will prevail unless proven otherwise (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). This change addresses scenarios where there have been conflicts between Waqf Boards and government bodies over land. There have been instances in the past where public lands – even a historical park and a gurdwara in one case – were mistakenly or controversially notified as waqf, leading to lawsuits (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). The new provision seeks to clarify that government or public property cannot be turned into waqf by usage or notification, and any such listings can be nullified. We will later see that this too has raised concerns, especially for longstanding religious sites on public land.
• “Waqf by User” and Property De-Notification: A related change is the handling of so-called “waqf by user” properties – sites that have been treated as waqf through long-standing public use (for instance, a shrine or mosque with no formal deed, but which people have used for worship for decades). The 1995 Act implicitly acknowledged waqf by user, and courts have at times recognized such properties as waqf even without formal documentation. The 2025 amendments, however, threaten to invalidate many waqf-by-user properties. The new law appears to require formal documentation for waqf and allows the authorities to declare waqf-by-user properties void if they lack a deed or notify them as non-waqf if any dispute arises (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). In fact, under the amended Act, if a property’s waqf status is under dispute, the default position is that it will be treated as non-waqf until proven otherwise. The District Collector is tasked with investigating such disputes, and during that inquiry the property is not to be treated as waqf (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). This reverses the earlier presumption (where once listed as waqf, a property stayed waqf unless a court ruled otherwise). The change aims to prevent the automatic or de facto locking up of land as waqf just because of communal usage, especially if another party contests the claim. However, critics fear it could lead to de-notification of genuine waqf sites and possible loss of waqf assets (see discussions on disadvantages). Notably, the Supreme Court has flagged this provision, warning that it might amount to premature de-notification even of properties previously upheld as waqf by courts (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times).
• Removal of Oral Waqf Declarations: The Bill tightens the definition and registration of waqf. It explicitly prohibits oral declarations of waqf, meaning one can no longer simply declare a property as waqf verbally or by long usage without formal procedures (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). All waqf must be registered through written documentation. This change is intended to curb ambiguities and fraudulent claims – in the past, some properties have been claimed as waqf without written deeds, leading to protracted disputes. By mandating formal registration and proper survey, the law seeks to ensure that only bonafide waqf properties (with clear intent documented by the donor or established by judicial order) are recorded as such (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). This is essentially a move to eliminate the traditional but opaque concept of waqf created by user or custom.
• Limit on Who Can Create Waqf: In a notable change to the personal scope of waqf, the Bill stipulates that only a person who has professed Islam for at least five years can create a waqf (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Earlier, after a 2013 amendment, even non-Muslims could create a waqf (for example, a non-Muslim could donate property to a mosque or waqf if they wished) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The new rule rolls this back – non-Muslims can no longer dedicate waqf, and even a recent convert to Islam must wait five years before they are eligible to endow waqf property (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The rationale given for this is not clearly articulated, but it might be to ensure the donor genuinely understands and intends the religious permanence of waqf, thereby preventing any misuse (such as someone converting solely to protect property as waqf and possibly converting back later). However, this provision has raised eyebrows as it creates a distinction even among Muslims based on how long they have practiced the faith. Legal analysts point out that such a distinction could be seen as arbitrary and potentially in violation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024), absent a strong justification.
• Changes in Waqf Tribunal and Dispute Resolution: The Waqf Act 1995 had established specialized Waqf Tribunals in each state to adjudicate waqf disputes. These were three-member bodies including one judicial officer, one state executive, and one expert in Islamic theology/law (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The 2025 amendments remove the requirement for an expert in Muslim law on the Tribunal (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024), meaning the tribunal may now consist only of a judge and a civil servant. This could streamline the tribunal’s functioning, but it also means the panel may lack domain expertise in Islamic law when deciding complex waqf questions (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). In line with enhancing judicial oversight, the Bill revokes the finality of tribunal decisions – previously, tribunal judgments were final and not appealable in civil court (except via limited constitutional petitions). Now, the aggrieved parties are explicitly allowed to appeal directly to the High Court of the state within 90 days of a tribunal’s order (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). This is intended to curb any arbitrary or erroneous decisions at the tribunal level by providing a judicial appellate review (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). While this change is beneficial for due process, it could also slow down dispute resolution since waqf cases might go through lengthy High Court litigation. Overall, this reflects a shift of trust from specialized tribunals to the general judiciary for resolving waqf matters.
• Renaming the Act and Technological Updates: The Bill proposes to rename the principal Act (though the new name has not been highlighted in media, it may simply be a minor change like updating the spelling from “Wakf” to “Waqf” in the official title). More substantially, it emphasizes the use of technology in waqf management ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ). This includes digitizing waqf records, creating online databases of waqf properties, and leveraging GIS (Geographic Information System) mapping to clearly demarcate waqf lands. These measures build upon existing schemes like the “Quami Waqf Board Taraqqiati Scheme (QWBTS)” which funds waqf boards to computerize records and the “Shahari Waqf Sampatti Vikas Yojana” which helps develop urban waqf properties ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). By codifying the push for digital record-keeping and transparency, the law seeks to reduce mismanagement. The Bill also reportedly increases accountability by providing for regular audits of waqf incomes (especially for larger waqfs) and perhaps reduces the administrative contribution that waqf estates must give to Waqf Boards (some sources indicate the mandatory contribution from waqf income to the Boards is reduced from 7% to 5%, allowing more funds to remain with the waqf for its charitable purpose) (WAQF Amendment Act 2025, Origin, Structure, Key Changes, Criticism). These technical improvements have been less controversial and are generally welcomed across the board as steps to modernize waqf administration.

In summary, the Waqf 2025 Bill brings sweeping reforms in how waqf institutions are governed and how waqf properties are identified and regulated (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). It increases government oversight and involvement (through appointed boards, Collectors’ powers, etc.) and introduces new checks on the creation and continuation of waqf properties (eliminating oral waqfs, requiring proof of waqf, etc.). At the same time, it incorporates some progressive elements like women’s representation and the ability to appeal disputes in regular courts. These features must be understood against the backdrop of how waqf law evolved in India and what issues have persisted historically – which we turn to next.

Historical Context of Waqf Laws and Administration in India

Origins of Waqf in India: The institution of waqf has a long history in the Indian subcontinent, dating back to medieval times when sultans, nobles, and ordinary Muslims would endow properties for religious and charitable purposes. Under Islamic law, once a waqf is created, the property is supposed to be held in trust in perpetuity for the designated purpose (for example, upkeep of a mosque, funding a madrasa, supporting the poor, etc.). During the Mughal era, many major shrines and charitable institutions were sustained through waqf endowments. However, with the advent of British colonial rule, the waqf system encountered new legal challenges. British judges, unfamiliar with Islamic endowment concepts, at one point questioned the validity of “family waqfs” (waqf that provided for the settlor’s descendants). In an influential 1894 case (Privy Council’s decision in Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak), certain waqfs that primarily benefited family members were declared invalid, sparking concern in the Muslim community. This led to early legislation to protect waqf in British India.

Colonial-Era Reforms: The first waqf-specific statute was the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913. This law explicitly allowed Indian Muslims to create waqfs even for the benefit of one’s family, so long as the ultimate motive was pious or charitable ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). In essence, it nullified the effect of the restrictive court rulings and recognized family waqfs as legitimate. This 1913 Act was a milestone as it aligned statutory law with Islamic practice and community sentiments. However, the administration of waqf properties was still problematic, with instances of mismanagement by mutawallis (caretakers) and lack of proper accounts. To address this, the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 was enacted, introducing rules for maintaining accounts and transparency in waqf management ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). It required mutawallis to furnish accounts of waqf properties, among other regulations. Subsequently, the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1930 further strengthened the legal backing for family waqfs, essentially reaffirming the validity of waqfs created for one’s descendants and later charitable purposes ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). By the end of the colonial period, a basic framework recognizing waqf and calling for accountability was in place, though enforcement remained weak.

Post-Independence and the Waqf Act of 1954: After India’s independence in 1947, the new government took up the task of overhauling waqf administration to curb rampant mismanagement. The result was the Wakf Act, 1954, the first comprehensive waqf law in independent India ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). This Act established the system of State Waqf Boards – statutory bodies in each state to oversee and protect waqf properties ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). These Boards were to be composed of Muslim community representatives and were entrusted with surveying waqf properties, ensuring their upkeep, and taking action against mismanagement. The 1954 Act also led to the creation of a Central Waqf Council (set up in 1964) under the Union Government to guide and supervise the State Waqf Boards from the center ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). The idea was to centralize some oversight while day-to-day management remained with state bodies. The Act further provided that waqf properties would be listed, and mutawallis would be accountable to the Boards. Over the next few decades, the 1954 Act was amended multiple times (in 1959, 1964, 1969, and 1984) to improve its implementation ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). For instance, amendments streamlined the appointment of Waqf Board members and gave Boards more powers to deal with offenders who misused waqf property. Despite these efforts, problems persisted: many waqf estates remained unregistered, encroachments on waqf land were common, and the Boards often lacked resources and authority to manage the vast number of properties.

Waqf Act of 1995: Eventually, the 1954 Act was found inadequate. In 1995, Parliament repealed the old Act and replaced it with the Waqf Act, 1995, which is the principal law governing waqf to this day ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). The 1995 Act carried forward the system of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, but with clearer definitions of their powers and functions ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). It mandated that each state must survey waqf properties periodically and maintain a Waqf register. The Act also created Waqf Tribunals – special courts to handle disputes related to waqf, such as ownership issues, mutawalli appointments, or encroachments ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). Importantly, decisions of these tribunals were made final (to prevent endless litigation in civil courts) ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). The Waqf Act, 1995 for the first time provided a relatively robust legal architecture: any unauthorized sale or transfer of waqf property was made illegal, Waqf Boards could take control of waqf in case of mismanagement, and schemes for development of waqf properties could be implemented. However, the performance of Waqf Boards continued to vary widely. Many Waqf Boards were plagued by political interference, corruption scandals or inefficiency. A significant observation came from the Sachar Committee in 2006 (a government-appointed committee to report on the social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India). The Sachar Committee devoted a chapter to waqf, noting that there were about 4 to 5 lakh (400,000–500,000) registered waqf properties in India, making Waqf Boards collectively perhaps the third-largest landowners in the country (after the railways and defense) (Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill | Religion News | Al Jazeera) (India’s 3rd-largest landlords, waqf boards are beset with litigations, demolitions, bias). Yet, the annual income generated from these assets was just a fraction of their potential, due to low rents, encroachments and mismanagement. Sachar Committee recommended modernizing the administration of waqf, including better use of resources, computerization of records, and inclusion of experts in management. It also underlined the need for professionalization while respecting the religious nature of waqf.

Waqf Amendment of 2013: In response to long-standing demands for reform (including recommendations from a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Waqf), the government amended the 1995 Act in 2013. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013 introduced several notable changes ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). Firstly, it restructured the Waqf Tribunals to be three-member bodies – adding a requirement that one member be an expert in Muslim law and jurisprudence ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). This was intended to ensure that at least one person on the tribunal understood the religious nuances of waqf. Secondly, it mandated the inclusion of at least two women on each Waqf Board (to ensure gender representation in what were traditionally male-dominated boards) ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). The 2013 amendment also explicitly prohibited the sale or gift of waqf properties under any circumstances ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ), in line with the principle that waqf property is inalienable (earlier, there had been gray areas or misuse where some mutawallis tried to sell waqf land – the amendment shut that door firmly). Another important change was extending the maximum lease period of waqf properties from 3 years to up to 30 years (and even 99 years in certain cases for educational or health projects) ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). This was a response to the need to commercially develop waqf assets – for instance, allowing waqf land to be leased for shops or housing for a longer duration to fetch better returns for the waqf, while still not selling it outright. The 2013 reforms were largely seen as positive for community empowerment and waqf development. They came after consultations with Muslim scholars and lawmakers, and thus did not trigger major controversy. Yet, even after 2013, issues like disputes over waqf property boundaries, allegations of Waqf Boards “encroaching” on public land, and charges of corruption within Waqf Boards continued to crop up.

Recent Issues and Build-up to 2025 Reform: In the late 2010s and early 2020s, several high-profile waqf disputes brought renewed attention to waqf laws. For example, in some states, Waqf Boards claimed large tracts of land as waqf based on historical records or usage, which others (Hindu groups, government authorities, etc.) contested. One incident reported was in Tamil Nadu, where the state Waqf Board allegedly declared certain lands (including those belonging to Hindu temples or public institutions) as waqf, causing an outcry. In Haryana, there was controversy over waqf listings that included properties of other faiths – a Gurdwara land being recorded as waqf by historical error, for instance (Press Release: Press Information Bureau) (21 instances when Waqf Boards have been accused of encroaching …). In another case, a public park (Chandrashekhar Azad Park in Allahabad/Prayagraj) was at one point notified as waqf property due to a historical grave, leading to confusion over its status (Press Release: Press Information Bureau). Such instances fueled a perception among some sections of the public that Waqf Boards had overreaching powers and were “land grabbing” in the name of religion (India’s 3rd-largest landlords, waqf boards are beset with litigations, demolitions, bias). Media reports and some right-leaning organizations compiled lists of cases where Waqf Boards were accused of encroachment or fraud in claiming land (21 instances when Waqf Boards have been accused of encroaching …). On the other hand, the Muslim community pointed out that many waqf properties were themselves victims of encroachment by others (individual squatters or even government projects) and that Boards lacked the strength to reclaim those lands. Thus, Waqf Boards found themselves fighting a “perception war” on two fronts – accused by some of grabbing land, and criticized by others for failing to protect waqf land from grabbers (India’s 3rd-largest landlords, waqf boards are beset with litigations, demolitions, bias).

By 2023-24, the ruling government signaled an intention to revamp waqf laws to address these issues. The introduction of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024 in Parliament on August 8, 2024 ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ) came in this backdrop. It was accompanied by the Mussalman Wakf Act (Repeal) Bill, 2024, a bill to formally repeal the obsolete 1923 Wakf Act (which had technically remained on the statute books) to ensure there is no conflict or overlap with the modern law ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ). The government presented the new amendments as a necessary update to make waqf administration more transparent, efficient, and free of disputes ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ). Indeed, the official explainer from the Minority Affairs Ministry stated that the Bill “aims to overcome the shortcomings of the previous act…and increase the role of technology in managing waqf records” ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ). It also framed the reform as aligning with “global best practices” in management of religious endowments ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). After introduction, the Bill was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) which gathered feedback and suggested some changes. The JPC report came in January 2025 (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024), and the Bill with some revisions was taken up in the Budget Session of 2025.

During parliamentary debates in March–April 2025, sharp divisions emerged. Opposition MPs (including from Congress, DMK, AIMIM, etc.) argued that the Bill was being pushed through without adequate consultation with the primary stakeholders – the Muslim community – and that it violated minority rights. The government, however, defended the Bill strongly. Kiren Rijiju, then a Union Minister, asserted in Lok Sabha that the amendments do not interfere with any religious freedoms and that the intent is purely to regulate property administration in a fair manner (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). He stated, “there is no interference in the freedom of any religious body”, implying that the religious usage of waqf properties would remain untouched, and only the governance structure was being improved (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). On April 2, 2025, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf Amendment Bill, and the Rajya Sabha approved it the next day on April 3, 2025 (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Thus, it was set to become law as the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, although by that time, opponents had already knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors to challenge its provisions. This push-and-pull between reform and resistance is deeply connected to constitutional provisions and guarantees, which we will explore in the next section.

Constitutional and Legal Context

Laws governing religious endowments like waqf intersect with several important provisions of the Indian Constitution. To understand the debate around the Waqf 2025 Bill, we must consider the constitutional context – particularly the rights of religious minorities, the state’s powers to regulate property, and the principle of equality before law.

Legislative Competence: At the outset, it’s worth noting under which authority Parliament can legislate on waqf. “Charitable and religious endowments” is a subject in the Concurrent List of the Constitution (List III, Entry 28), meaning both the central and state governments can make laws on it. The Waqf Act, 1995 is a central law applicable across India (except Jammu & Kashmir, which had its own Wakf laws until recently). States have the option to have their own waqf laws, but in practice almost all states follow the central Act for uniformity. The 2025 amendments being a central initiative are within Parliament’s power, though they crucially affect state-run Waqf Boards. No one disputes Parliament’s competence to amend the Waqf Act; the disputes are about constitutional rights and guarantees.

Article 26 – Right to Manage Religious Affairs: One of the primary constitutional objections raised against the Waqf Amendment is under Article 26 of the Constitution, which grants every religious denomination the freedom “to manage its own affairs in matters of religion” and to own and administer property for religious and charitable purposes. Waqf institutions, being essentially Muslim religious charities, are closely tied to this right. Critics argue that allowing non-Muslims to dominate waqf governance bodies violates Article 26, as it takes away the community’s autonomy in managing its endowments (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). In the past, waqf laws always ensured Muslim-only management precisely to respect this autonomy (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The 2025 Bill, by potentially creating Waqf Boards with a majority of non-Muslim members, marks a radical departure. The question raised is: Can the state impose members of other faiths onto a body that manages Islamic religious property? The Supreme Court, during the hearings, openly questioned this, with the Chief Justice of India asking whether such a change would ever be contemplated for, say, Hindu temple boards or Sikh gurdwara committees (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). Indeed, other Indian laws governing Hindu and Sikh religious institutions require the managers to be of that faith (for example, Hindus alone manage Hindu temple trusts, Sikhs alone manage gurdwaras) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). For the government, the counter-argument is that Waqf Boards are statutory bodies for public charitable trusts and not purely religious “denominational” management in the sense of Article 26. The government insists that including a few non-Muslims, such as government officials or experts, is an administrative arrangement and does not interfere with how religious rituals or tenets are decided (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). They emphasize that religious practices (prayers, customs at mosques, etc.) remain the sole domain of the mutawallis and clergy, and the Board is only for secular management aspects (accounts, development, record-keeping) (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). Nonetheless, if non-Muslim members form a majority and can outvote Muslim members on a Board, it effectively cedes control of waqf assets to those outside the community, which is why many believe it runs afoul of Article 26. This constitutional contention will ultimately be decided by the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s interim observations suggest skepticism about the inclusion of non-Muslim majorities in waqf bodies (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times).

Article 25 – Freedom of Religion: Article 25 guarantees all individuals the freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, health and morality. While Article 26 covers the collective rights of religious denominations, Article 25 covers personal religious freedom. Some petitioners against the Waqf Bill claim that the law infringes Article 25 as well, by potentially restricting religious charitable giving. For instance, the new requirement that one must be a Muslim for 5 years to create waqf – does it impinge on a person’s right to practice religion (by making a charitable endowment) freely? A new convert to Islam might consider it part of their religious duty to donate property, but the law would bar them from doing so for five years. This could be viewed as a limitation on the right to practice religion for that period. However, the counter is that Article 25 is subject to state regulation of secular activities associated with religion (Article 25(2) allows the state to make laws for social welfare and reform even if they interfere with religious practices). Managing the secular aspects of a religious endowment can be seen as such a domain of regulation. The government’s stance, repeated often, is that “the bill is about property and its management, not religion” (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). In other words, they argue they are regulating the secular administration (financial and legal) of waqf properties, which is permissible, and not telling people how to pray or whom to donate to in a spiritual sense.

Article 14 – Equality Before Law: Another constitutional issue is the principle of equality (Article 14). Laws are not allowed to arbitrarily discriminate between people without reasonable justification. The Waqf Amendment Bill contains a few provisions that create classes of people, which have been questioned. One clear example is the 5-year requirement for waqf creators. As PRS Legislative Research notes, this distinction between Muslims who have been in the faith for over five years and those who have not, appears arbitrary (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). If a person is otherwise competent to contract and donate property, why should the duration of their faith matter? Unless the government can provide a credible rationale (such as preventing misuse by insincere conversions solely to create waqf – an argument yet to be substantiated), this could fail the reasonable classification test under Article 14 (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Another aspect is the differential treatment of religions. Mandating non-Muslims in Waqf Boards but not mandating, say, non-Hindus in temple boards or non-Sikhs in gurdwara boards, could be seen as unequal treatment. However, one might argue that since the circumstances of different religious institutions differ, such comparison may not hold strictly (and also, those other bodies are governed by different laws, not by the Waqf Act). Still, from a broader perspective, the move has been criticized for singling out the Muslim community’s institutions for an experiment in “inclusive management” that is not applied to others – which some call unfair or even discriminatory (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). Proponents might counter that Waqf Boards handle public charitable assets and thus can be treated differently from purely religious bodies. This will be another fine point for the courts to consider.

Right to Property (Article 300A): The right to property is no longer a fundamental right in India (it was demoted to a constitutional legal right via the 44th Amendment in 1978), but it still requires that the state follow due process to deprive someone of property. In the context of waqf, one could ask: if a property that has been considered waqf for generations is suddenly declared “not waqf” by a Collector under the new law, is that a deprivation of property without due process for the waqf or the community? On the flip side, if the waqf boards had wrongly appropriated someone else’s property, the new law corrects that. So the property rights argument can cut both ways. Petitioners from the Muslim side see the de-notification and “non-waqf until proven waqf” rule as effectively dispossessing the waqf of its property rights without proper judicial process (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). Normally, disputes of title would be resolved by a court, not by an executive officer’s interim decision. The government might respond that any Collector’s decision is still subject to challenge in the Waqf Tribunal and High Court, so due process is available. But until reversed, the property would be treated as state property, which could have consequences (e.g., the state could take it for a project). This interplay with property rights will likely be examined under the lens of arbitrariness and due process.

Minority Rights and Secularism: Although not a single article, the broader principle at stake is India’s constitutional promise to protect minority rights in a secular framework. Article 29 and 30 protect cultural and educational rights of minorities (not directly relevant to waqf, which is about religious property). However, the spirit of those provisions and the constitutional ethos is that minorities should have the freedom to maintain their institutions. Critics of the Bill feel it is part of a pattern of the state encroaching on minority institutions – citing, for example, government interventions in Muslim personal law (like the ban on triple talaq) and now in waqf administration (Waqf Amendment Act 2025: A Strategic Move in the Hindu …) (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera). On the other hand, India’s secular state has long regulated religious institutions of all communities to some extent (Hindu temples in many states are under government-controlled trusts; the Sikhs have the statutory SGPC, etc.). So the question becomes: is the waqf law reform a reasonable regulation or an excessive infringement? The BJP-led government claims it is addressing governance issues, not targeting religion (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera), whereas opponents suspect a motive to weaken community control and possibly open waqf assets to exploitation.

It’s worth noting that a barrage of petitions in the Supreme Court contends that various provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 violate Articles 14, 25, 26, and the basic framework of minority rights (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). The Supreme Court’s interim orders in April 2025 – staying the appointment of non-Muslims to Waqf Boards and protecting existing waqf properties from any status change until the case is decided – indicate that the Court found prima facie merit in those constitutional concerns (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). As this legal battle unfolds, constitutional scholars are closely watching to see how the judiciary balances the state’s reformist objectives with the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equality.

In summary, the constitutional context frames the Waqf 2025 Bill as more than just an administrative law; it is a test case for how far the state can go in intervening in the management of religious community assets. The key constitutional questions revolve around religious autonomy (Article 26), non-discrimination (Article 14), and the definition of secular governance. Both sides of the debate invoke the Constitution – the government cites powers to regulate and the duty to ensure public welfare, while the opponents cite fundamental rights and minority protections. A balanced analysis must therefore consider not only the legal letter of these provisions but also their spirit, as interpreted in India’s jurisprudence and historical practice.

Potential Advantages of the Bill (Pros)

Supporters of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025 highlight several potential advantages and positive outcomes that the new law could bring about. From the perspective of governance and public interest, these reforms are seen as addressing long-standing problems in waqf administration. Below are the key arguments in favor of the Bill and the benefits that could accrue if it is implemented:

• Enhanced Transparency and Accountability: One of the driving justifications for the Bill is to make the management of waqf properties more transparent. By mandating proper surveys and record-keeping (with the District Collectors involved) and digitizing records, the law can help create a clear inventory of waqf assets (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). In the past, lack of data and opaque record-keeping led to disputes and even corruption. The new provisions for property verification and classification ensure that every waqf property is accounted for with verified details, reducing ambiguities (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). The integration of technology (computerized databases, GIS mapping) is likely to streamline the registration and monitoring of properties, which is a big positive given the scale of waqf estates. A modern, transparent record can be accessed by stakeholders to check encroachments or misuse in real time. Additionally, regular audits (particularly for high-income waqfs) and the requirement for Boards to be more inclusive could shine light on the financial operations. All these measures cumulatively address what the government calls “shortcomings of the previous act” in terms of oversight ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ), and could result in better governance and reduced mismanagement.
• Improved Dispute Resolution and Legal Oversight: By removing the finality of Waqf Tribunal decisions and allowing appeals to the High Courts, the amendments strengthen judicial oversight over waqf disputes (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). This is beneficial for parties who felt that specialized tribunals sometimes acted arbitrarily or were susceptible to local pressures. Now, an aggrieved mutawalli or a third-party claimant or even a Waqf Board itself can seek a remedy in the regular judiciary, which is perceived as more independent. Greater judicial scrutiny can help curb any arbitrary exercise of power by Waqf Boards or tribunals (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). If a Waqf Board wrongly lists someone’s property as waqf or a mutawalli misuses funds, the High Court can be approached for a fair resolution, ensuring justice is served. Also, the removal of the Muslim law expert from tribunals could make proceedings more straightforward, relying purely on law and facts and then allowing the High Court to interpret Islamic law aspects if needed. This streamlining might speed up the resolution of thousands of pending waqf cases over time. In effect, the legal redressal mechanism becomes more robust, which is in the interest of all stakeholders – genuine waqf properties will be better protected by law, and unfounded claims can be struck down by higher courts.
• Protection of Public and Other Properties from Wrongful Waqf Claims: Another positive aspect – especially from a public policy viewpoint – is that the Bill safeguards government lands and properties of other communities from being encumbered as waqf without basis. The explicit clause that any government property wrongly registered as waqf will be taken off the waqf list (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) addresses a critical pain point. There have been contentious scenarios where, for example, railway lands, archaeological sites, or even a gurdwara’s parcel of land were recorded as waqf, leading to protracted fights between agencies (Press Release: Press Information Bureau) (21 instances when Waqf Boards have been accused of encroaching …). The amendment empowers the Collector to swiftly correct such errors, ensuring that public projects or other religious institutions are not hindered by questionable waqf claims. This also indirectly benefits the waqf institution’s credibility – by clearing out illegitimate entries, the remaining waqf portfolio consists of genuine endowments, which can then be defended more vigorously. The government’s logic here is that once land is declared waqf, its status is changed forever, so one must be very cautious in labeling any land as waqf (Large section of Muslim community welcoming Waqf Amendment …). The Bill puts in checks to prevent rash or fraudulent notifications of waqf, which is a sensible safeguard. For the general public, this means less chance of, say, a public park suddenly coming under a waqf claim or a non-Muslim religious place being entangled in waqf litigation. It aims to create a clearer demarcation between waqf and non-waqf assets, reducing inter-community friction and confusion.
• Curbing Misuse and “Land-Grabbing” Concerns: Allied to the above, the Bill is lauded for attempting to curb what some have seen as misuse of waqf provisions by certain Waqf Boards or individuals. The inclusion of a clause dealing with disputed properties (treating them as non-waqf until inquiry) can prevent scenarios where someone might frivolously declare a piece of land as waqf (perhaps to block a development or lay claim to someone else’s property) and then drag the matter, effectively stalling any other use of that land. With the Collector’s inquiry mechanism, such claims would not automatically halt other operations; only if the inquiry finds merit in the waqf claim would it then be reinforced. Advocates of the Bill argue that this will deter bogus or inflated claims of waqf. In fact, one of the petitioners, advocate Hari Shankar Jain, who is otherwise critical of waqf laws, admitted that Waqf Boards had been “exploiting” broad provisions to illegally claim lands belonging to villages or temples, and demanded those be reined in (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). The government’s amendments address exactly those issues by clarifying the process and giving local authorities a say. Thus, from a reform perspective, the Bill can be seen as protecting property rights of others and preventing any abuse of waqf law. This not only benefits non-Muslim communities and state agencies, but also ensures that Waqf Boards focus on truly waqf properties instead of getting entangled in extraneous battles. In the long run, that focus can lead to better management of actual waqf assets.
• Inclusive and Efficient Management: The introduction of non-Muslim members and experts into waqf institutions is pitched as a way to professionalize and broaden the talent pool in waqf administration. Often, Waqf Boards have struggled with capacity – in terms of financial management, legal acumen, or development expertise. By allowing, say, a reputed accountant or a civil servant from another community to serve, the Boards might gain skills that help in auditing accounts or liaising with government for projects. Some members of the Muslim community have themselves called for depoliticizing and reforming Waqf Boards. In that sense, having a more diverse board with government nominees could reduce local factional politics. Notably, the Bill also ensures women’s representation on Waqf Boards (continuing the 2013 provision) ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). This is certainly a pro – having Muslim women as at least two members brings gender diversity and can make waqf institutions more representative of the community they serve (women’s voices in decisions like educational waqf schemes or shelter homes can be invaluable). The Bill’s supporters highlight that inclusion of OBCs (Other Backward Classes) and other groups among nominees can make Boards more attuned to social welfare objectives rather than being old boys’ clubs ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). Faizan Mustafa, a constitutional expert, noted that inclusion of women, non-Muslims, and OBCs on Waqf Boards is a welcome step for fairness and diversity ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ) – implying it could bring new perspectives and credibility. If managed well, these changes could transform waqf bodies into more broad-based charitable trusts that work transparently, similar to how many church or temple charities include laypersons with various expertise.
• Modernization and Better Utilization of Waqf Assets: The Bill explicitly aims to “modernize waqf administration” and improve efficiency ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ). By increasing the lease terms and facilitating development, it becomes easier for Waqf Boards to enter into joint ventures or long-term leases to develop waqf properties (for instance, building hospitals or schools on waqf land). Longer lease periods (30 years or more) and clearer titles (by resolving disputes) can attract investment into waqf properties which were otherwise lying derelict. Ultimately, the beneficiaries of waqf (often the poor or the religious congregation the waqf supports) would gain if the waqf generates more income or provides better services. A well-managed waqf property could mean more scholarships for students, better maintenance of mosques, and more resources for community welfare. The Bill’s removal of hurdles like unclear ownership and short leases can unlock this potential. The government also reduced the Waqf Board contribution from waqf revenues (from 7% to 5%), as reported, meaning each waqf keeps a bit more of its earnings for its own charitable purpose (WAQF Amendment Act 2025, Origin, Structure, Key Changes, Criticism). This is an example of the Bill being responsive to community feedback – many mutawallis had complained that giving 7% to the board was onerous; a 5% contribution eases that and leaves more funds for direct charitable use. Such a change can incentivize mutawallis to formalize their accounts since the burden is slightly lower.
• Addressing Community Grievances and Women’s Issues: Interestingly, the government claims that some of the reforms respond to demands from within the Muslim community (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). There have indeed been voices (especially among Muslim women activists) that Waqf Boards needed more women members and that mutawallis often ran waqfs in a patriarchal way. By mandating women members on boards and by having stricter oversight, the Bill could indirectly ensure waqf resources are not just benefiting a few powerful individuals (who sometimes treat waqf as personal fiefdoms). Instead, the focus can shift to genuine charitable outcomes which the broader community wants. The Ministry of Minority Affairs in its FAQ highlighted that waqf is meant to serve the needy and that mismanagement has to be curbed for the community’s benefit ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ). If the reforms succeed, ordinary Muslims – especially the underprivileged who rely on waqf-funded facilities – could actually see better services: e.g. cleaner graveyards, well-maintained mosques, functioning waqf schools and clinics, etc. So while on the surface some parts of the community protested, there is a segment that quietly welcomes steps to make waqf institutions more accountable and development-oriented.
• Consistency with Secular Oversight Practices: Proponents also argue that having government and even non-religious oversight in religious endowments is not novel in India. Many Hindu temples (like in South India) are managed by government-appointed committees, and the sky hasn’t fallen for those religions. The idea is that as long as core religious practices are not interfered with, having outsiders ensure no corruption can be healthy. The Waqf Council was anyway chaired by a government minister even under the old law (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). So broadening participation may align waqf management with “one nation, one law” ideals – i.e., gradually treating management of all religious endowments under similar standards of transparency and state supervision. This is seen by some as a step toward a more uniform civil sphere, where no community’s assets are in a legal silo beyond accountability. In a pluralistic country, a framework that allows cross-community collaboration (like a Hindu official helping manage a Muslim waqf’s development project, and vice versa perhaps someday) can foster interfaith understanding and unity in social work.

In summary, the pros of the Waqf 2025 Bill can be encapsulated as follows: it modernizes an antiquated system, plugs loopholes that allowed abuse, introduces professional management practices (diverse boards, audits, tech-driven records), and ultimately seeks to ensure waqf properties are used for the intended charitable purposes effectively rather than being caught in controversy or mismanagement. The Bill’s measures like property verification, dispute resolution via courts, and inclusive boards all are directed at greater transparency, efficiency, and fairness in waqf administration (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). If implemented in good faith, these changes could revitalize waqf institutions, unlock their socio-economic potential for the community, and reduce conflicts with other entities. As always, the proof will lie in implementation – but on paper, the intended advantages make a strong case that the reform was needed.

Potential Disadvantages of the Bill (Cons)

Despite the stated benefits, the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025 has met with significant criticism and concern, especially from Muslim minority organizations, opposition leaders, and some legal experts. They argue that the law, in its zeal to reform, introduces provisions that could be harmful, unconstitutional, or counter-productive. Here are the major points of concern – the potential disadvantages or downsides of the Bill as perceived by its critics:

• Erosion of Minority Autonomy and Rights: The foremost criticism is that the Bill undermines the rights of the Muslim community to manage its own religious endowments. By imposing non-Muslim members (even a majority) on Waqf Boards and centralizing appointments under government control, the community’s say in its waqf affairs is diminished (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Many see this as a direct attack on minority rights and a violation of the constitutional freedom under Article 26 (the right of religious denominations to administer their institutions) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). It’s argued that waqf, being rooted in Islamic religious duty, should logically be managed by those of the faith; bringing in other religious groups (or state officials with no stake in Islamic charitable objectives) could distort priorities. For example, would non-Muslim board members adequately protect waqf properties that have low monetary value but high religious sentiment? Skeptics fear that a government-appointed board might be less inclined to resist if the government wants to use a waqf land for some infrastructure project, whereas a community-elected board might fight to preserve it. Muslim community leaders have expressed that this law “marginalises Muslims and weakens their control” over their own charitable institutions (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). In essence, what was previously a self-administered sphere (albeit under state law) is now perceived to be taken over by the state. The distrust is exacerbated by the fact that similar changes have not been made to the management of Hindu or other religious institutions, leading to a feeling of discrimination.
• Unconstitutional or Legal Uncertainty: Closely tied to the above, many provisions may face constitutional hurdles. If the courts strike down key sections (as is quite possible, given the Supreme Court’s interim remarks), the law could end up in a limbo or require re-legislation. This uncertainty itself is a disadvantage because Waqf Boards now are unsure which rules to follow. The Supreme Court’s interim order in April 2025 – directing status quo on waqf properties and no non-Muslim appointments until further notice – effectively put critical parts of the law on hold (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times). Such litigation can drag on, meaning the waqf administration might be stuck between old and new systems for an extended period. This is disruptive. Moreover, if ultimately clauses like non-Muslim majority are struck down as unconstitutional ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ), it will be a serious setback to the reform and might discourage future nuanced reforms. In the meantime, the conflict between the community and government on this issue can widen the trust deficit.
• Fear of Government Overreach and Misuse: Opponents worry that the changes give the government excessive powers that could be misused against the interests of waqf. For instance, the District Collector’s power to declare a disputed property as non-waqf until inquiry is seen as problematic (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). In many parts of India, the local administration might be under pressure from political bosses to free up land for development or to appease majority sentiments. There’s a fear (however speculative) that someone could challenge a prominent waqf (say a historic mosque or graveyard on valuable land) as “disputed”, and then the Collector can immediately treat it as non-waqf, enabling authorities to take control or even demolish structures on it, under the guise that it’s not waqf pending inquiry. The Al Jazeera report captured the mood, noting that “critics say the move could leave properties donated by Muslims over centuries more vulnerable to disputes and demolitions” (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera). This is not an idle fear given communal tensions; people recall the case of the Babri Masjid (though not a waqf issue per se) where a religious site became disputed and was ultimately lost by the Muslim side. By making waqf properties easier to declare non-waqf, the law, in critics’ eyes, opens the door for hostile elements to challenge and grab waqf lands. The government’s assurance that due process will be followed does not fully allay these fears, because the first step itself (loss of waqf status during inquiry) is seen as a major tilt against the waqf.
• Precedent of Unequal Treatment (One-Sided Reform): The Bill has been attacked for its one-sided nature – it only targets Muslim endowments. If the rationale is truly good governance, why are similar principles not being applied to trusts and endowments of other religions? For example, many Hindu temples are flush with assets but have issues of mismanagement; yet there is no central push to include non-Hindus in temple trusts or to treat temple lands under dispute as non-temple by default. This asymmetry leads to the perception that the waqf law is not a neutral reform but a political move aimed at the Muslim community. Some analysts argue that this contradicts the BJP’s own stated ideal of a uniform civil code or “one nation, one law” – instead of uniformity, it creates a peculiar situation where waqf is treated in a way no other endowment is (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (Why the Waqf Bill Passage Is Not a ‘Muslim’ Issue, It Affects all of India). This could harm the cause of national unity rather than help it, as it could foster resentment among minorities that they are being singled out. In the long run, it might also set a precedent where future governments tamper with the internal management of minority institutions (educational or religious), which minorities view with suspicion. Constitutional scholar Faizan Mustafa pointed out that if non-Hindus are not even allowed on temple boards, mandating non-Muslims on Waqf Boards violates the principle of parity, and thus courts may strike it down ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). The upshot is a sense that the community’s institutions are being treated unequally.
• Community Backlash and Distrust: The manner in which the Bill was introduced and passed – seen as rushed by many community leaders – has itself caused a backlash. Instead of consulting widely with Muslim organizations like the Central Waqf Council, State Waqf Boards, or the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the government pushed the Bill relatively quickly (it was introduced in August 2024 and passed by April 2025). This led to protests on the streets in several cities and a cascade of legal challenges (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera). The social unrest angle is a serious concern: for instance, protests in some places turned violent, as in one report where protesters clashed with police over the waqf amendments (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). A law that is meant to improve a system ideally should have buy-in from that system’s stakeholders; here, the key stakeholders – Muslims – largely feel alienated by it. If the community at large is hostile to the law, that could hamper its implementation. Mutawallis might refuse to cooperate with non-Muslim board members; people might hide information during surveys out of fear/mistrust; and talented Muslim professionals who could help waqf might withdraw if they feel the institution is compromised. Essentially, the trust between the community and the state on waqf matters has been eroded. This is a disadvantage because no reform can truly succeed without local cooperation. Moreover, it diverts attention: instead of focusing on development of waqf, Waqf Boards and community leaders are now spending time and resources fighting the law in court and media. That means the actual goal of uplifting waqf might be delayed or diluted amid the contention.
• Potential Political Misuse: Critics also raise the specter of political misuse. Since all Waqf Board members will be nominated by the government of the day, there is a risk that boards become filled with ruling party loyalists rather than genuine community representatives (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). A hostile state government could even appoint a majority of members from outside the community (imagine a scenario where a state nominates 6 non-Muslims and 5 Muslims to a board) – legally possible now – which could then make decisions that align with the state’s political agenda rather than the waqf’s welfare. Even the inclusion of “one member of the Bar Council” or “one MP/MLA” etc. as per the new scheme could be an avenue to park political affiliates onto the board. Such politicization could mean decisions like leasing waqf land to crony developers or misappropriating waqf funds for non-charitable uses if checks fail. Previously, at least some members were elected by the Muslim community (e.g. by Muslim MPs/MLAs voting for some positions, and by mutawallis voting for their representative). That democratic element is lost. Concentration of power in government hands is worrying in any context, and here it’s over the assets of a minority – making it more controversial. If a different party comes to power, they might again reshuffle boards, leading to instability. This uncertainty and politicization could degrade the institutional integrity of Waqf Boards.
• Undermining Traditional Islamic Law Aspects: Some Islamic scholars feel that removing the Muslim law expert from the Tribunal and restricting who can create waqf both show a disregard for the religious underpinnings of waqf. Waqf is not just another trust; it operates under Islamic jurisprudence principles (for instance, concepts of wakif, mutawalli, istimrari (perpetuity) etc.). Traditionally, issues like validity of a waqf, whether a certain use is permissible, etc., are answered by Islamic law. Having a Muslim law expert on the Tribunal ensured those nuances were respected (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). Without that, decisions might be taken purely on civil law considerations, potentially clashing with community understanding. Likewise, by initially allowing non-Muslims to dedicate waqf (in 2013) and then revoking it in 2025 but adding a 5-year condition for Muslims, the law has oscillated, creating confusion about what the “definition” of waqf is. The concept of “waqf by user” which was part of Indian waqf practice (accepted by some court decrees and underlying the existence of old graveyards or mosques without documents) is essentially being nullified. This might erase heritage waqf sites that have no papers – e.g., ancient Sufi saint shrines where formal waqf deeds were never made could be in jeopardy if someone challenges them. Such outcomes would be seen as dishonoring the legacy and sentiment behind those waqf, causing community hurt.
• Practical Implementation Challenges: There are also practical concerns. The new law puts a lot on the plate of District Collectors – surveying all waqf, handling disputes, etc. District administrations are already burdened, and if they don’t prioritize waqf matters, this reform may remain on paper. It’s possible that surveys might not be done thoroughly, or inquiries might be perfunctory, leaving waqf matters in worse limbo. Also, with High Courts now hearing waqf appeals, their dockets could get heavier; if High Courts are slow, waqf litigants might actually face longer waits than under tribunals. Another issue: how will the government find enough qualified non-Muslim individuals willing to serve on every Waqf Board? If they simply put bureaucrats or local politicians, will those persons actively contribute or just occupy a seat? Some fear boards might become less effective if the new members are disinterested or lack understanding of waqf. The removal of elected representation might demotivate mutawallis and community figures who earlier took initiative to get on boards via elections.
• Alienating Moderate Voices and Reform from Within: A subtle con is that this external reform may have undercut internal reform efforts. Over the years, many moderate Muslim scholars and organizations have advocated for cleaning up waqf management and using waqf for upliftment. They could have been natural allies for a well-consulted reform. But the unilateral way the law came (without taking them into confidence) has pushed even moderates to oppose it, because they cannot be seen supporting a law their community distrusts. As Faizan Mustafa suggested, the community might accept positive parts if given a chance ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ), but because the law is bundled with aspects seen as anti-community, even good provisions are being opposed. This polarization means losing out on potential cooperative implementation. If instead a consensus-based approach was taken (e.g., keep Muslim-only boards but enforce digitization and accountability), perhaps results would come with less friction. Now, even parts like digitization or longer leases, which are beneficial, might not be embraced wholeheartedly due to the overall negativity around the law.

In summary, the cons of the Waqf 2025 Bill, as articulated by its critics, include: a perceived infringement on religious freedom and minority autonomy, possible unconstitutionality (breaching Articles 14, 25, 26) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024), risk of government overreach and even communal misuse of waqf assets, the unequal application of reform which breeds a sense of injustice, and the backlash and distrust it has generated in the community leading to social and legal battles. There is a worry that instead of solving problems, the law might create new ones – communal tensions, endless litigation, paralysis of waqf activities, and a precedent for further encroachment on minority rights. As one opposition MP described it, the Act has been termed “arbitrary and discriminatory against Muslims” (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). Whether or not one agrees fully with that characterization, it is clear that a large section of the intended beneficiaries of this law (the Muslim community) currently view it with suspicion. That in itself is a significant disadvantage, because community buy-in is crucial for managing and preserving waqf properties. The challenge will be to address these concerns either through judicial review or amendments, so that the goal of waqf reform does not end up alienating the very people it is meant to help.

Perspectives and Reactions from Different Stakeholders

The introduction and passage of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025 elicited a wide range of reactions across the spectrum – from legal experts and constitutional scholars, to minority community leaders, public policy analysts, and political figures. To truly understand the controversy, it is helpful to examine these viewpoints individually, as they shed light on the various dimensions of the debate:

1. Muslim Community Leaders and Organizations: Most Muslim religious and community leaders have voiced serious concerns about the Bill. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), an influential body on Muslim affairs, has been at the forefront of opposition. Its members (several of whom are petitioners in the Supreme Court case) argue that the law infringes on Islamic affairs and is a step toward diluting Muslim identity in the management of their institutions (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). Asaduddin Owaisi, MP and president of the AIMIM party, vehemently opposed the Bill in Parliament and later joined the legal challenge. He contends that “the Act is an attempt to marginalise Muslims” and that it enables the government to interfere in waqf for ulterior motives (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). Owaisi and others point out that if the government’s real aim was to improve waqf, it would have consulted waqf boards and community bodies rather than pushing a law “against the wishes of those it impacts”. Some have gone so far as to call it a “conspiracy” to usurp waqf properties. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (a large council of Muslim clerics) and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind have organized protests, holding placards and meetings to raise awareness against the Bill (Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill | Religion News | Al Jazeera). Their leaders emphasize that waqf is a trust from the community to God, and its sanctity must be preserved by those who believe in that trust. In their view, the Bill violates the sanctity of waqf and the constitutional protections for minority rights, and thus must be repealed or struck down. However, amid these strong voices, there are a few nuanced takes: for example, some community members quietly acknowledge the need for reform (like better accounting and prevention of land fraud) but believe it should be done by the community’s own initiative or in genuine partnership with the government, not imposed top-down.

2. Political Opposition (Secular/Non-Muslim Leaders): It’s notable that the opposition to the Bill is not only from Muslim figures. Many secular political leaders and parties under the umbrella of the INDIA alliance (the opposition coalition in 2025) have criticized the Act. Congress Party leaders, for instance, have been vocal. Abhishek Singhvi, a senior advocate and Congress MP who argued against the Act in the Supreme Court, hailed the Court’s interim order as “an important step towards restoration of constitutional principles” (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times). He asserted that the Act contained “anti-constitutional aspects” that the Court rightly chose to halt (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times). Congress General Secretary K.C. Venugopal said the Supreme Court’s observations “validated the apprehensions raised by opposition parties inside and outside Parliament” (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times) (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times). Leaders from other parties like the DMK (e.g. MP A. Raja), RJD (Manoj Jha), CPI(M), AAP (Amanatullah Khan, who incidentally was the chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board), have either filed petitions or spoken out that the law is discriminatory (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). They frame it as part of a broader pattern of the current government undermining minority rights and secular values. For example, Amanatullah Khan called it a “government intrusion on minority religious properties threatening constitutional rights” (Politics behind ‘redress’ of waqf property rows – The Tribune). Even a non-Muslim politician like Sukhbir Singh Badal (of Akali Dal, a Sikh leader) opposed it, likely in solidarity with minority rights (also perhaps wary that similar interference could happen to Sikh institutions). These opposition voices argue that the government should focus on helping Waqf Boards recover encroached waqf lands and increase waqf income (which could genuinely uplift poor Muslims) rather than taking control of them. In Parliament debates, they warned that this Bill could set a precedent to interfere with other religious communities in the future, which should alarm all. Thus, the political opposition largely frames the Bill as unconstitutional, anti-minority, and a diversion from genuine development issues.

3. The Government and Ruling Party Standpoint: On the other side, the BJP-led government and its allies staunchly defend the Bill. Smriti Irani, the Union Minister for Minority Affairs (under whose ministry waqf falls), championed the Bill in Parliament. She and other BJP MPs argued that nothing in the Bill violates religious freedom; they often repeated that “this is about property management, not about religion” (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row). They emphasized instances of waqf mismanagement – citing audit reports of Waqf Boards that pointed to corruption, or specific controversies where public interest suffered because of waqf claims. Kiren Rijiju, seen in an image defending the Bill in Lok Sabha, assured that the Bill brings “no interference in freedom of any religious body” (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). BJP leaders accuse the opposition of fear-mongering and communalizing what is an administrative reform. They also pointed out that the Bill actually incorporates feedback from a Joint Parliamentary Committee (which had members from various parties) and that it added provisions for monument protection – for instance, reportedly the government introduced an amendment to ensure that protected monuments/sites are not affected by waqf claims (On eve of discussion, Centre introduces 3 changes to Waqf Bill) (addressing fears after some ASI-protected sites were claimed by waqf). The government’s narrative is that it is “cleaning up a mess” – they say waqf boards have been historically misused by certain politicians and elites (ironically, often accusing Congress-era appointees of misdeeds), and that the Muslim community at large will benefit when waqf properties are freed from those clutches and used for real development. They cite the Sachar Committee’s findings on thousands of crores of potential waqf revenue not being realized (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera) – and argue this reform is trying to unlock that for the community’s good. To counter the Article 26 argument, some in BJP invoke that even Jawaharlal Nehru (India’s first PM from Congress) had brought Waqf under law in 1954, meaning state regulation of waqf is not new. Overall, the official position is encapsulated in a statement: “Key changes are meant to increase transparency and government oversight in Waqf property management…address concerns about arbitrary powers and misuse” (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). They also highlight that some reforms were even welcomed by parts of the Muslim community (for example, BJP claimed that several Waqf Board chairpersons quietly supported measures like digitization and stricter auditing, even if they couldn’t say so publicly) (Large section of Muslim community welcoming Waqf Amendment …).

4. Legal Experts and Constitutional Scholars: The legal fraternity has engaged deeply with the subject, given the constitutional questions. Faizan Mustafa, a noted constitutional law scholar and Vice-Chancellor of a Law University, has provided a balanced critique. In an interview, he said he “welcomes the inclusion of women, non-Muslims and OBCs in Waqf Boards on grounds of fairness and diversity,” but he warned that making non-Muslims a majority “could be struck down by courts because it breaches the principle of equal treatment of similar institutions.” ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). He recommends that Muslim institutions “accept those parts of it that are positive and forward-looking whilst contesting those parts they oppose.” ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). This nuanced view acknowledges potential benefits (like diversity and women’s inclusion), yet affirms the constitutional concern (Article 26 parity issue). Other jurists like Rajeev Dhavan (a senior advocate) have commented that the state cannot take over minority institutions under the guise of regulation without violating constitutional safeguards. Some point to past Supreme Court rulings, such as the 1997 Prabhakar vs State of Andhra Pradesh case (on a Hindu endowment board) where SC held the composition of a religious trust’s board should not violate denomination rights – implying a similar principle here. Arvind Datar (senior advocate) wrote that while appealing to High Court is good, removing the Muslim law member is not, as it could hamper justice delivery in waqf cases. Public policy think-tanks like PRS have raised red flags: PRS’s analysis noted the inconsistency of mandating non-Muslim members in waqf when other religions’ boards are homogeneous (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024), and questioned the 5-year criterion as possibly violating Article 14 (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). These expert analyses are often cited by petitioners in court to bolster their case that the law has legal flaws. At the same time, a few legal voices supportive of the government exist: e.g., Sai Deepak (an advocate known for right-leaning views) argued that since waqf deals with public charity, it is not solely a religious affair and thus including others is constitutionally permissible (though this is a minor view). The ongoing court case will likely see many such expert opinions debated.

5. Public Policy Analysts and Media Commentary: Various columnists and analysts have weighed the pros and cons. A piece in Frontline (The Hindu’s magazine) titled “Who really benefits from the Waqf Amendment Bill?” examined the Bill’s features and suggested that it “overhauls waqf administration, stripping powers from traditional bodies and centralising control under government authorities.” (India’s Waqf Amendment Bill 2024: Key Changes and Controversies …). It was critical, saying this move “contradicts the one nation, one law principle” often touted by the ruling party, since it singles out one community. On the other hand, an op-ed in The Times of India (hypothetical example) might have applauded the intent to reform but cautioned the government to implement it sensitively. The international press also followed the issue: Al Jazeera published reports highlighting Muslim worries that Modi’s government has a “more sinister plan” with waqf, given the context of other policies (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera) (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera). They also ran a feature “How India’s $14bn Muslim endowments are being plundered, even by the gov’t”, indicating that historically waqf assets have been siphoned by various parties and the government itself hasn’t been above reproach in grabbing waqf land for projects (Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill | Religion News | Al Jazeera). Such pieces underscore the complexity – yes, waqf boards had issues, but also governments have misused waqf (e.g., in some states waqf land was acquired for cheap for public works). TwoCircles.net, a community media outlet, noted that “the existing laws didn’t prevent nomination of non-Muslim members,” citing Prof. Mustafa to imply perhaps that a few could be nominated even before, but mandating it is new (Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024: Government Control vs. Religious …). Some editorials appealed for a middle ground: recommending that the government put the law on hold and engage with community leaders to amend the controversial parts, thereby achieving reform with consensus.

6. Supreme Court and Judiciary’s Stance: While not a stakeholder group in the political sense, the higher judiciary’s response is crucial. During the hearings in April 2025, the Supreme Court bench (Chief Justice S.K. Khanna and others) was quite outspoken. The CJI reportedly remarked in court that the provision on non-Muslim inclusion “raises eyebrows” and mused how people would react if a law forced temple trusts to have Muslim members (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). The bench also highlighted the “far-reaching consequences” of nullifying waqf-by-user properties (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). The interim order they passed – securing all existing waqf from any change and getting a government assurance of no non-Muslim appointments (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) – was welcomed by petitioners as a sign that the Court is protective of minority rights. The Congress even called it a “key step towards restoration of constitutional principles” (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times). The Court has essentially put a temporary check on the most disputed actions under the Act, which in effect sides with the critics at least until full arguments are heard. This has given hope to the Bill’s opponents that the judiciary will ultimately read down or invalidate the problematic sections. The government, on its part, acquiesced to the interim directives (no new changes until the Court decides) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times), showing that it is cautious about pushing enforcement in defiance of the Court. All eyes are now on the final judicial outcome – it could shape the narrative of victory for one side’s perspective. If the Court upholds the Act entirely, the government’s view gets vindicated; if it strikes down parts, the opposition’s stance is justified. Many constitutional scholars predict a mixed result – the Court might uphold some reforms (like High Court appeals, tech improvements) but strike or read down the non-Muslim majority requirement to, say, allow inclusion without allowing majority, as well as possibly remove the 5-year condition. Faizan Mustafa advised the community to be prepared to accept the beneficial parts even if Court upholds them ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ).

In conclusion, the reaction to the Waqf 2025 Bill spans a broad gamut:

• Minority community leaders: largely opposed, framing it as an encroachment and unconstitutional.
• Opposition politicians: echo those concerns, making it a rallying issue for secularism and minority rights.
• Government and supporters: defend it as a needed reform for transparency and efficiency, denying any religious infringement.
• Legal experts: divided but many caution that parts of it may not pass constitutional muster, though some elements are progressive.
• Analysts and media: highlight both the governance issues it tries to fix and the communal distrust it has sown, often critical of the approach if not the intent.
• Judiciary: appears sympathetic to minority concerns at least at the interim stage, signalling that the Bill’s most controversial aspects are on shaky ground (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times).

This mix of perspectives underscores that the Waqf Amendment Bill touches on sensitive nerves – governance, religion, community trust, and constitutionalism – all at once. Each stakeholder group brings valid points to the table shaped by their role and interests. A balanced analysis, therefore, must acknowledge that the government’s impetus for reform had merit in addressing real issues, even as the community’s fears of rights erosion are also grounded in constitutional principle and historical context. Bridging these divergent views will be key to any lasting resolution.

Conclusion

The Waqf 2025 Bill represents one of the most significant overhauls of India’s waqf law in decades, and as this analysis has shown, it sits at the intersection of legal reform, community rights, and constitutional governance. On paper, the Bill’s objectives are laudable – aiming to modernize waqf management, introduce transparency, and rectify procedural loopholes that have plagued the administration of hundreds of thousands of waqf properties ( Press Note Details: Press Information Bureau ) (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times). The legislation brings in measures like better record-keeping, checks on unauthorized claims, broader representation (including women), and judicial oversight – all of which could strengthen waqf institutions if implemented in true spirit. These are the pros that promise a more efficient use of waqf assets for the welfare of the community and the nation.

However, the manner and substance of some changes have also sparked genuine alarm. The Bill arguably overcorrects in parts – by swinging open the doors of Waqf Boards to non-Muslim participation and tight executive control, it has triggered apprehensions of government overreach into the internal domain of a minority community’s charitable institutions (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times). The cons and criticisms highlight fears that the community’s autonomy and the inviolability of waqf could be compromised, and that the law may conflict with constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equality (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024). The strong reactions – from street protests in cities to a deluge of petitions in the Supreme Court – underscore how deeply sensitive and complex this issue is. Waqf in India is not just about managing properties; it is entwined with the historical memory, religious life, and socio-economic aspirations of the Muslim community. Any attempt to reform it was bound to be delicate.

Going forward, a balanced path needs to be charted. The Supreme Court’s intervention provides an opportunity for course-correction. If certain provisions are indeed struck down or read down (for example, perhaps allowing non-Muslim members but not so many as to form a majority, or removing the 5-year rule), the essence of reform can still survive without the elements deemed unconstitutional ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). The government, on its part, might consider engaging in dialogue with community representatives and Waqf Boards during this intervening period. Trust-building measures – such as publicly assuring that waqf properties will not be alienated and that the role of non-Muslim members is only advisory or for expertise – could alleviate some concerns. The involvement of respected Muslim figures in any rules or implementation committees could also help signal that the community’s voice is heard.

From the community’s side, there is an opportunity to acknowledge and embrace the positive aspects of the Bill. Calls by some scholars to accept the forward-looking provisions (like women’s inclusion and anti-corruption measures) are prudent ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa ). The energy seen in opposing the Bill could be channeled into partnering with authorities to improve waqf management, ensuring that once the legal issues are settled, Waqf Boards are ready to implement reforms that survive. After all, at the end of the day, both the community and the state ostensibly share a common goal: that waqf properties be safeguarded and used optimally for the upliftment of the community (education, healthcare, poverty alleviation) and preservation of heritage.

In the broader perspective, this episode also reignites conversation on how to balance secular governance with pluralism. India’s constitutional framework does allow the state to regulate secular aspects of religious institutions, but it also erects walls to protect religious communities’ autonomy. The Waqf 2025 Bill tests those boundaries. The outcome of this will likely set a precedent – either confirming the state’s power to introduce diverse management in religious charities or affirming limits to such intervention. It is a reminder that reforms touching on religious matters must be carefully calibrated and preferably achieved through consultation and consensus rather than unilateral action.

To conclude, the Waqf 2025 Bill is both a product of long-felt necessity for reform and a flashpoint of contemporary socio-political dynamics. This comprehensive analysis has presented the Bill’s key features – from changes in board composition to property dispute handling – and situated them in historical and constitutional context. It has weighed the pros (transparency, efficiency, inclusion) against the cons (potential rights erosion, misuse, community alienation), and surveyed the gamut of opinions from various stakeholders, each adding a layer to our understanding. The task ahead is to reconcile these perspectives in practice. A reformed waqf administration, if achieved with respect for constitutional values and community sentiment, could indeed become a model for how India can modernize institutions of all religions without eroding the rich tapestry of its pluralism. In the spirit of the Constitution, any solution must ensure that minority rights are safeguarded even as minority institutions are reformed – a balance that is challenging but imperative. The final shape of the Waqf Act (Amendment) 2025, as it emerges from the judicial and possibly legislative refinement process, will be a telling indicator of how India navigates this balance in the 21st century.

Sources:

• PRS Legislative Research – “The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024” (Bill Summary and Analysis) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024) (The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024)
• Press Information Bureau – “Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025: The History of Waqf in India” (Backgrounder) ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau ) ( Press Release: Press Information Bureau )
• The Economic Times – news reports on Supreme Court proceedings and government statements (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times) (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times)
• India Today (Best Colleges) – “Explained: Waqf Act amendment row” (16 April 2025) (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row) (Explained: Waqf Act amendment row)
• Al Jazeera – “Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill” (3 Apr 2025) (Indian parliament’s lower house passes controversial Muslim endowments bill | Religion News | Al Jazeera); “Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments” (6 Dec 2024) (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera) (Waqf bill: Why Indian Muslims worry about Modi plan for $14bn endowments | Politics | Al Jazeera)
• The Wire – Karan Thapar’s interview with Faizan Mustafa, “Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts” (3 Apr 2025) ( ‘Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards Welcome, but Could Be Struck Down by Courts’: Faizan Mustafa )
• The Economic Times – “Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law” (ET Online, 8 Aug 2024) (Waqf Act Amendments: Tighter control, more women and non-Muslims members, five key changes to Waqf law – The Economic Times)
• Supreme Court Interim Order coverage – The Economic Times and others (Apr 2025) (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times)
• Statements from Opposition leaders – ET Bureau report (Apr 18, 2025) (Key step towards restoration of constitutional principles, says Congress; welcomes SC’s interim decision on Waqf Act – The Economic Times) and Rising Kashmir (news on SC hearing) (SC halts non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, no denotification of properties till next hearing – The Economic Times).