The story so far: President Droupadi Murmu on Saturday (April 5, 2025) gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (2025 Act), the Union Law Ministry said in a notification. The contentious legislation was passed by Parliament this week after two marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Originally introduced last year, the law was earlier referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Jagdambika Pal for scrutiny. The report was laid before both Houses on February 13, 2025.

What does the law aim to do?

In Islamic law, waqf refers to property dedicated in the name of god for religious or charitable purposes. Proceeds from such properties are typically used to maintain mosques, fund educational institutions, or support the poor. Once designated as waqf, the property becomes inalienable — it cannot be sold, inherited, or gifted. The Waqf Act, 1995 (1995 Act), and its 2013 amendments under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government created the legal framework for managing waqf properties and established State Waqf Boards.

The new law seeks to amend the 1995 Act, now renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act. It proposes sweeping reforms that significantly expand the government’s role in regulating such properties and adjudicating disputes related to them. While the government justifies these amendments as necessary for transparency, critics and Opposition parties argue that they encroach upon the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.

Who is eligible to make a waqf dedication?

Under the original law, any person, regardless of religion, could dedicate property as waqf. However, the new amendments restrict this right to only those who have practised Islam for at least five years. The 2025 Act now requires individuals to “show or demonstrate” adherence to Islam for this duration to establish a waqf. Dr. Faizan Mustafa, Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, has criticised this requirement as constitutionally suspect. “Once a person embraces Islam, they are entitled to all associated rights, including the right to religious dedication. This provision also violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as it discriminates against recent converts by selectively barring them from endowing property for religious purposes”, he told The Hindu.

What about ‘waqf by user’ properties?

Last year, the government proposed a complete repeal of the doctrine of “waqf by user” — a principle rooted in Islamic legal tradition that recognised properties as religious or charitable endowments based on uninterrupted communal use, even in the absence of formal documentation. However, the JPC report cautioned that dismantling this doctrine could destabilise the legal standing of such properties, many of which have been informally managed by local communities for decades. Accordingly, the 2025 Act now clarifies that all existing “waqf by user” properties registered on or before the law’s enactment will retain their status unless they are disputed as government land.

Will government oversight intensify?

The 2024 Bill reallocated the responsibility of surveying waqf properties from dedicated survey commissioners to District Collectors. It also repealed Section 40 of the 1995 Act, which had empowered the Waqf Boards to initiate suo motu inquiries to determine whether a property qualified as waqf, even without official documentation. However, the JPC recommended that such surveys be conducted by senior State officials. Accordingly, the new legislation now mandates that “an officer above the rank of Collector” survey properties where government ownership is disputed.

“The claim that there was no government oversight is a myth. The existing law already allows the government to issue directions to Waqf Boards, nominate members, and even supersede them. Replacing trained survey commissioners with District Magistrates who are already overburdened undermines institutional capacity,” Dr. Mustafa pointed out.

Is there non-Muslim representation?

One of the law’s most contentious provisions is the inclusion of non-Muslims in key waqf institutions. It mandates that both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards must have at least two non-Muslim members. It also removes the requirement that the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board should be a Muslim. In line with a JPC recommendation, the 2025 Act stipulates that the State government’s representative on the Waqf Board must be a joint secretary-level officer specifically overseeing waqf affairs.

Opposition parties argue that these changes infringe upon the community’s constitutionally guaranteed right to manage its religious affairs. However, welcoming the reforms, Dr. Mustafa said, “The diversity of the nation must be reflected in all its institutions, including Waqf Boards, which are statutory bodies. The inclusion of women, non-Muslims, and members of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is a positive step. The real question is whether similar reforms will be introduced in temple boards as well.”

What about financial accountability?

The law introduces a centralised registration system for waqf properties to enhance financial oversight. Muttawalis (custodians of waqfs) will be required to upload property details within six months of the law’s enactment, and all future registrations must be routed exclusively through this portal to the respective Waqf Boards.

The legislation also proposes to repeal Section 107 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which had exempted waqf properties from the scope of the Limitation Act, 1963. This exemption had enabled Waqf Boards to reclaim encroached land without being bound by the Act’s 12-year limitation period. However, critics argue that its removal would permit encroachers to claim ownership through adverse possession, legitimising illegal occupations of waqf land.

What lies ahead?

Congress MP Mohammed Jawed, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi, Delhi legislator Amanatullah Khan, and the NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights have filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court, contending that the legislation infringes upon constitutionally guaranteed rights to religious freedom and property. “When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, courts begin with a presumption in favour of its validity. Therefore, the burden lies heavily on the petitioner to demonstrate that the law violates fundamental rights,” said Dr. Mustafa.