Parliament Passes Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 With Rajya Sabha Clearance

Yesterday, during the debate, the Government and its members clarified that the Act intends to ensure effective management of waqf property to ensure that the revenue generated from Waqf is equitably divided for the welfare of the Muslims.

Rijiju stated that the Government has accepted some of the JPC's recommendations and also clarified that the provision of waqf by the user is prospective in nature. This was also clarified by Amit Shah, Ministry of Home Affairs. Shah ensured that there would be no interference with the religious affairs of Muslims.

Rijiju today added that the Bill aims to add transparency, accountability and efficiency. He cited the Kerala HC judgment in 'Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs Union of India And Ors,' which held that the Waqf Board is only a statutory body, pure and simple and not a representative body of the Muslim body. Rijiju defended the decision to add two non-Muslim members and stated that the Government only want to make the administration more secular, which has nothing to do with interfering with religious affairs. 

Rijiju also cited another Alld HC judgment, Hazif Mohd Zafar Ahmd v. UP Central Sunni Board of Waqf, which observed that the role of Muttawali is secular and not a religious practice.

JP Nadda, Leader of the House, today stated that although the Government supported the 2013 amendment brought during the Congress's tenure. But in 2020-21, the Government realised that from 1913 to 2013, the waqf property was only 18 lac hectares, but in 2013 to 2025, 21 lac hectares of waqf properties were added. To ensure it was not misused, the Government brought this Bill.

Nadda stated that the 2013 amendment appeared to overwrite the constitutional framework of the country because it granted extraordinary powers to the waqf board. It became a draconian law, he said. He specifically pointed out Section 40 of the Parent Act and stated that the waqf Board could decide by itself if a property was a waqf property or not. He also referred to the provision which disallowed citizens to challenge the order of the waqf Tribunal in regular courts and stated that this violated Article 21.

Section 54 was also referred which according to Nadda allowed for removal of encroachment by the Tribunal's order. Whereas Section 5 and 6 of the Parent Act barred civil courts from taking any legal action.

Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of Opposition, questioned why the Government has stopped five schemes benefiting Muslims if they want the welfare of Muslims. He also added that the Government continues to decrease the budget to the Ministry of Minorities.

Kharge pointed out that instead of the Survey Commissioner conducting a preliminary inquiry into the waqf property, the Government first gave the authority to the Collector and now to a nominated member of the State above the authority of the collector.

The Opposition criticised the law as violating Article 25 of the Constitution and alleged that the Government was trying to divide the people on religion. Some of the members also questioned the working of the JPC. Today, Dr. Syed Naseer Hussain stated that for the first time, the Government invited non-stakeholders because they knew the large majority of people are against the Bill.

Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that the Bill completely violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He added that he has been a part of some of the significant cases such as relating to the Sabrimala temple and Dawoodi Bohra community and in these judgments, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that once a practice or custom becomes an essential religious practice, it completely comes within the fundamental right protection guaranteed under Articled 25 and 26.

Singhvi referred to Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay, which he quoted as: "the law which takes way the right of administration altogether from religious denomination and vests it in another other more secular authority would amount to violation of rights under Article 26."

Another reference made by Singhvi of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs The State Of Rajasthan and he quoted: "Article 26 brings out the competence of the legislature to make a law in regard to the administration belonging to religious denomimation...the denomination's right must however not be extinguished, diminished or destroyed under the guise of regulating the administration of the property by the denomination".

Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party today pointed out that the Government in 2020 itself had made a declaration before the Supreme Court that 99% of the waqf properties have been digitised.

Yerram Vankata Subba Reddy, while opposing the Bill today, stated that he wants to flag the change of name of the waqf Bill to 'Unified Waqf Management Empowerment Efficiency And Development' and added that the term 'waqf' has a religious and historical significance which is now being taken away.

In general, the Opposition objected to the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board. Dr John Brittas, from CPI(M), today stated that now with the inclusion of two non-Muslim members, out of 23 members of the Central Waqf Council, there will be 13 members who are non-Muslim which changes the dynamics. 

1. Proof of practising Islam for 5 years: The proposed Bill had stated that only a person who has been practising Islam for at least five years can declare a waqf.

JPC's recommendation: The JPC report has proposed that instead of a person practising Islam for at least 5 years, an amendment can be made to include "any person showing or demonstrating that he/she is practising Islam for at least 5 years".

Government's response: The Government did not say anything about it despite that this was criticised by most of the legislators especially in terms of what would be the criteria to determine if a person is a practising Muslim or not.

2. Waqf by user: The proposed Bill omits the provision relating to the waqf by user.

JPC's recommendation: The Committee notes that this omission has created some apprehension among the various stakeholders and the Muslim community at large regarding the existing status of the 'waqf by user'.

The Committee has proposed adding a proviso which clearly specifies that the omission of 'waqf by user' from the definition of waqf will apply prospectively. This would, however, be subject to the condition that the property wholly or in part must not be involved in a dispute or be government property.

Government's response: Rijiju clarified that this change is prospective in nature and will not effect waqf by user prior to the passing of the Bill.

3. Wrongful claim of waqf on government property: The draft Bill proposed a new Section 3C, which says that any government property 'identified' or 'declared' as waqf, before or after the amendment, shall not be deemed to be waqf property. In case of dispute whether a property is a waqf or government property, the Collector will decide.

JPC's recommendation: The committee has accepted the recommendation. However, it has been noted that the Committee has received "strong objection" on the proposal of delegating the power of determining whether a property is a waqf property or government to the Collector.

The JPC has suggested that the decision of appointing an official to conduct an inquiry in cases of wrongful claims on government property by waqf board should be left to the State Government. Therefore, it has stated that instead of the word 'Collector', it may be substituted with 'designated officer'.

Government's response: Rijiju stated that the Government has accepted this suggestion of the JPC and the proposed Bill modifoed this provision to allow a higher-ranking officer to be in charge of the process.

4. Inclusion of non-Muslim members: The Bill proposes the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Central Waqf Council, Board of Auqaf, and State Waqf Board.

JPC recommendation: JPC says inclusion of two non-Muslim members will make it more board based and promote inclusivity and diversity in waqf property management.

The Committee has noted that the presence of non-Muslim ex-officio members may result in fulfilling the requirement of proposed amendments and therefore, it has recommended that the two non-Muslim members shall be appointed excluding ex-officio members.

5. Constitution of Waqf Tribunal: As per the 1995 Act, whether a property specified as waqf in the list of auqaf is waqf or not or whether it is Shia or Sunni waqf shall be decided by a Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final. However, the 2024 Amendment proposed that the decision of the Tribunal is not final and can be appealed within 2 years.

JPC's recommendation: It says introduction of the provision of appeal to the High Court directly and change in the composition of the Tribunal would expedite disposal of pending cases considering that as many as 19,207 cases are pending in Waqf Tribunals.

The Committee has however suggested that the composition of the Tribunal requires revision to incorporate a member having knowledge of Muslim laws and also to make the Tribunal a three-members body rather than two-members body.

It has also proposed to omit the timeline for settlement of disputes as it notes that the existing provision already says that the proceedings should be held as expeditiously as possible.

Government's response: Rijiju stated that the Government has accepted this recommendation and instead of two members, the Tribunal will comprise of three-members for efficient functioning.