The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 received the presidential assent on April 05, 2025 and became an act. This bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 08, 2024, and sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) the same day. The JPC submitted its report after 38 sittings on January 30, 2025. Thereafter, it was passed in the Lok Sabha on April 02, 2025 and in the Rajya Sabha, the next day.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, amends the Waqf Act, 1995. It seeks to improve administration by renaming the act, updating definitions, enhancing the registration process, and increasing the use of technology for managing Waqf records. All this exercise was done to simplify the operations of the Waqf boards and enhance the effective management of Waqf properties (Auqaf).
Along with the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, another bill, namely, The Mussalman Waqf (Repeal), Bill 2024 was also introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 08, 2024. The repeal bill was passed from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on April 02 and 03, 2025, respectively. Thus, it has repealed the Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923, which provided for management of Waqf property, keeping and publication of their accounts, and defined waqf.
Understanding Waqf and its Legal Framework
Waqf refers to the permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for religious, charitable, or pious purposes as defined by the Muslim law. Such purposes include the upkeep of mosques and graveyards, the establishment of educational and healthcare institutions, and the provision of financial aid to the needy and disabled.
In India, charitable and religious institutions fall under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, meaning both Parliament and state legislatures have the authority to create laws on them.
Waqf properties in India can be created through oral or written deeds, long-term religious or charitable use of land or through endowment after the line of succession ends. The creator of a Waqf is known as Waqif, and an administrator called Mutawalli manages the Waqf.
Historical Background
The history of Waqf in India dates back to the Delhi Sultanate, when Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor, also known as Muhammad Ghori, dedicated two villages to Jama Masjid of Multan (now in Pakistan) and entrusted their administration to Shaikhul Islam. As Islamic dynasties flourished, the number of Waqf properties grew. In the late 19th century, a dispute over Waqf property reached the Privy Council of London, where British judges condemned Waqf as a harmful perpetuity. Despite this, the ruling was rejected in India and the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act of 1913 preserved the institution, which has since remained unchallenged.
Legal Framework
The legal framework governing Waqf has evolved over time. The 1913 Act only validated Waqf deeds; the 1923 Act required the mandatory registration of properties; the 1954 Act established the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards for better management; and the 1995 Act introduced tribunals to resolve Waqf-related disputes. These tribunals hold the same powers and responsibilities as civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Waqf Act, 1995 used to govern the creation and management of Waqf properties in India, succeeding previous laws, i.e., the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913; the Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923; and the Waqf Act, 1954. States like Uttar Pradesh and Bengal had their own laws, which were later repealed by the 1995 Act. Despite these advancements, various issues persisted, such as unrealised revenue, potential encroachment, poor maintenance, and delayed tribunal cases. In 2013, amendments to the 1995 Act addressed these issues by defining encroachers, expanding tribunal size, and increasing oversight of Waqf management.
Current Status of Waqf Assets
As per the Ministry of Minority Affairs, data available on Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) portal, India has around 8.72 lakh registered immovable Waqf properties covering an area of 37.39 lakh acres under 32 boards in 25 states and 5 union territories. The Ministry of Minority Affairs states that India holds the largest Waqf holdings globally, with the Sachar Committee (2006) estimating the market value of these properties at Rs 1.2 lakh crore. However, 7 per cent of Waqf properties are encroached upon, 2 per cent are under litigation, and 50 per cent have an unknown status. A significant portion of these properties includes graveyards, agricultural land, mosques, and shops with the highest concentration in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Punjab.
Key Amendments in the 2025 Act
- The draft legislation proposed to rename the existing Waqf Act, 1995 as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act.
- Changing the formation of Waqf, this act stipulates that only individuals practising Islam for at least five years can declare a Waqf.
- Additionally, it requires that the person declaring Waqf must own the property.
- The act removes the provision for ‘Waqf by user’ and specifies that Waqf-alal-aulad, or endowment made when the line of succession ends, must not disinherit heirs, including female heirs.
A ‘Waqf by user’ refers to a property considered as Waqf solely due to its continuous use over time for religious or charitable purposes, even in the absence of any formal declaration or legal documentation.
- The amendment act removes section 40 of the 1995 Act, eliminating the unilateral authority to declare any property as Waqf without due process of by Waqf boards. This addresses longstanding concerns regarding arbitrary classification of private or community-owned lands as Waqf properties.
- The amendment act also reduces the mandatory annual contribution from Waqf institutions to boards from 7 per cent to 5 per cent, enabling more effective utilisation of resources for charitable and developmental activities.
- Regarding the survey and documentation of Waqf properties, the 2025 Act replaces the role of the survey commissioner with the district collector under the state revenue laws, who will now be responsible for conducting the survey of Waqf properties. In terms of government property being identified as Waqf, the act states that any such property will no longer be considered Waqf. The district collector will determine ownership and submit a report to the state government for further action, updating the revenue records if the property is deemed government-owned.
- The composition of the Central Waqf Council also undergoes changes under this act. While the original 1995 Act required all members, except the union minister in charge of Waqf, to be Muslim, the 2025 Act removes this requirement. It now mandates that two members must be non-Muslims.
- The Waqf Boards’ composition is amended, allowing the state government to nominate one person from each background to the Board, including two non-Muslim members, at least one representative each from the Shia, Sunni, and Backward Muslim Communities, and one member each from Bohra and Agakhani communities, provided Waqf properties exist for these groups in the state.
- The amendment act modifies the composition of Waqf tribunals by removing the expert in Muslim law. The new structure will include a district court judge as the chairman and a state officer with the rank of a joint secretary. This act also allows appeals against tribunal decisions to a high court within 90 days, overturning the previous provision that made tribunal’s decisions final.
- The act grants the central government authority to establish rules for Waqf registration, publication of accounts, and proceedings of Waqf boards. It also empowers the central government to have these accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or a designated officer.
- The Waft Act, 1995 allowed separate boards for Shia and Sunni sects if Shia Waqf exceeded 15 per cent of total Waqf properties or income in a state. The 2025 Act extends this provision to include separate boards for Bohra and Agakhani sects as well.
Key Issues and Analysis
Reducing Muslim Representation in Waqf Governance The Waqf Acts of 1913, 1923, 1954, and 1995 mandated that Waqf be created according to Muslim law, as defined by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. These laws are specific to Muslims, unlike secular laws such as the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which also allow for the creation of charitable institutions. The amendment act proposes to include non-Muslim members in Waqf-governing bodies, which contrasts with the previous requirement of Muslim-only membership. However, this change may conflict with Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right of religious communities to manage their own affairs.
Changes to the Composition of Waqf Bodies The Waqf Act, 1995 required the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards to primarily consist of Muslims. This act amends this by mandating the inclusion of non-Muslim members, allowing them to be a majority in both the council and the boards. The act also changes the nomination process, giving the state government full authority to nominate board members. Additionally, while the earlier act required the council’s members to be Muslim, this act allows for two non-Muslim members and permits up to 12 non-Muslim members. This act also adjusts gender representation, mandating two Muslim women members but not applying this requirement to non-Muslim members.
Chief Executive Officer not a Muslim The 1995 Act mandated that state governments appoint a Muslim chief executive officer (CEO) to the State Waqf Board, equivalent to a deputy secretary. The CEO must adhere to the Waqf deed, purpose, and Muslim law. This act removes the requirement of the CEO to be Muslim, whereas other religious and charitable endowment laws require administrators to belong to the respective religion. The Sachar Committee had emphasised in 2006 the need for government officers knowledgeable in Islamic law to efficiently manage Waqf matters.
Removal of Muslim Law Expert from Waqf Tribunal The 1995 Act mandated the formation of tribunals to resolve Waqf-related disputes, consisting of three members: a judge, a state officer, and an expert in Muslim law. Given that Waqf is defined by Muslim law, the absence of an expert in Muslim law may hinder adjudicating disputes according to Islamic principles, unlike other laws such as the Companies Act, which require technical experts in tribunals.
Requiring Religious Affiliation for Five Years The Waqf laws of 1913, 1923, 1954, and 1995 defined Waqf as property dedicated only by Muslims. In 2013, the scope was expanded to include property dedicated by non-Muslims. However, this act reserves this by requiring the Waqf creator to be a Muslim for at least five years. This creates a distinction between those practising Islam for less than five years and those for longer, with unclear reasoning behind it. Without a clear public purpose, this distinction may violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality.
Repeal of Section 107 of Waqf Act, 1995 The amendment act, repealed section 107 of Waqf Act, 1995, thereby bringing Waqf properties under the ambit of the Limitation Act, 1963. This enables individuals to claim ownership of Waqf land through adverse possession after 12 years, potentially limiting Waqf boards ability to reclaim encroached properties.
Comparison with Trust Law In addition to Waqf, endowments can also be established through trusts, which are regulated by the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Unlike Waqf, which is governed by specific religious principles, public charitable trusts are secular in nature. The key distinctions include donor’s eligibility, method of creation, usage, governance, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Some states, like Maharashtra and Gujarat have appointed a charities commissioner to oversee public trusts. For instance, the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the Bombay Public Trusts (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1962, provide for the establishment of a charities commissioner to manage these trusts.
Drafting Inconsistencies The earlier act mandated that all members of a state Waqf board must be Muslim, simultaneously introduces a provision for two non-Muslim members on the board, creating a contradiction. Additionally, the earlier act recognised ‘Waqf by user’, allowing properties to remain Waqf even if the user is no longer present. This act removes this provision, but it is unclear whether this will apply only to future cases or will also affect existing waqf-by-user properties, potentially disqualifying them as Waqfs.
Waqf Laws in Other Countries Waqf governance differs across countries. The Ministry of Minority Affairs reviewed international Waqf management practices in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey, finding that Waqf properties are typically regulated by government-established laws and institutions. In Malaysia, some states have respective Waqf laws; Indonesia, Bangladesh, and, the UAE have a national law.
The JPC’s Recommendations and Unresolved Concerns
In response to criticism of the Waqf Amendment Bill, the JPC proposed a safeguard for existing ‘Waqf by user’ properties registered before this act, but excluded disputed or government-claimed properties. Stakeholders emphasised the need for clarity on retroactivity and protection of existing Waqf registrations. Despite these suggestions, concerns remain due to the act’s lack of a clear definition of ‘practising Islam’ and its failure to address documentation issue for older properties. Additionally, the committee’s limited focus on transitional measures overlooks the broader impact on community-led governance.
Conclusion
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has sparked intense debate over its potential to erode protections for ‘Waqf by user’ properties. The JPC’s report highlights concerns about excluding undocumented religious sites, centralising authority with state officials, and undermining religious autonomy guarantees. While the committee suggests some remedies, the act’s long-term effects depend on addressing issues like retroactivity, documentation support, and community representation.
Following the enactment, over 65 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act were filed in the Supreme Court by politicians, legal professionals, and civil organisations. In contrast, six states—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have supported the law, asserting that it aligns with constitutional principles and public interest. The matter now awaits judicial scrutiny by the apex court.
As the government revises the amendment, finding a balance between administrative efficiency and preserving minority rights is crucial.
© Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd.
