On April 2, 2025, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, with a vote of 288 in favor and 232 against, marking a significant legislative milestone after a marathon 12-hour debate. The bill, which seeks to amend the Waqf Act of 1995, was subsequently tabled in the Rajya Sabha on April 3, 2025, by Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju. This legislation, now renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Bill, aims to overhaul the governance and management of Waqf properties across India. However, its passage has sparked intense debate, with the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) defending it as a progressive reform, while the opposition, including the INDIA bloc, has labeled it unconstitutional and an attack on Muslim rights. This article delves into what Waqf is, its responsibilities, the amendments introduced by the bill, and the key points of contention.

What is Waqf?

Waqf, derived from Islamic tradition, refers to the permanent dedication of movable or immovable property by a Muslim for purposes deemed pious, religious, or charitable under Muslim law. Once designated as Waqf, the property cannot be sold, transferred, or repurposed, symbolizing its dedication to God for the benefit of the community. In India, Waqf properties include mosques, madrasas, graveyards, orphanages, and vast tracts of land, making Waqf boards the third-largest property holders in the country after the Indian Railways and the defense forces.

The concept of Waqf in India dates back to the 12th century during the Delhi Sultanate, with its formal legal structure evolving under British rule through acts like the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923. The Waqf Act of 1995, amended in 2013, currently governs these properties, mandating the creation of state-level Waqf Boards to manage them. These boards oversee properties donated without formal documentation in many cases, relying on historical usage or verbal dedications.

Responsibilities of Waqf Boards

Waqf Boards, established under the 1995 Act, are tasked with the following responsibilities:

  • Management and Supervision: Overseeing Waqf properties to ensure they serve their intended charitable or religious purposes, managed by caretakers known as mutawallis.
  • Revenue Utilization: Using income from Waqf properties to maintain religious sites, fund educational institutions like madrasas, and support community welfare initiatives such as orphanages.
  • Property Registration and Survey: Identifying, registering, and conducting surveys of Waqf properties to prevent encroachments and disputes.
  • Dispute Resolution: Historically, Waqf Tribunals adjudicate disputes over property ownership, with the board having the authority to declare a property as Waqf under Section 40 of the 1995 Act.

Despite these responsibilities, Waqf Boards have faced criticism for mismanagement, corruption, and encroachments, with properties often illegally occupied or claimed without proper documentation.

Key Amendments in the Waqf Bill 2024

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduces significant changes to address these issues and enhance transparency and efficiency. The key amendments include:

  1. Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Governance: The bill mandates the inclusion of at least two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, alongside Muslim women and representatives from diverse Muslim sects. Moreover, Non-Muslims can also be appointed as CEOs or government nominees, shifting from the 1995 Act’s requirement that all members be Muslim.
  2. Revised Property Declaration Criteria: Only individuals practising Islam for at least five years and owning the property can declare it as Waqf, aiming to prevent fraudulent claims. The bill removes the “Waqf by user” provision, which allowed properties to be recognized as Waqf based on long-term use, even without formal documentation. Waqf-alal-aulad (family endowments) must not disinherit heirs, including women, promoting gender equity.
  3. Centralized Registration and Technology: All Waqf properties must be registered on a central portal within six months (extendable by the Waqf Tribunal), leveraging technology for better record-keeping and transparency.
  4. Shift in Dispute Resolution: The authority to determine whether a property is Waqf or government-owned shifts from Waqf Tribunals to a state-nominated officer (initially the District Collector, now a senior state official per JPC recommendations). Disputed properties will be treated as government property until resolved, reversing the 1995 Act’s framework.
  5. Tribunal Reforms: Waqf Tribunals will now consist of a district judge, a state official (Joint Secretary rank), and a member with knowledge of Muslim law. Their decisions can be appealed in High Courts within 90 days.
  6. Removal of Section 107: The bill deletes the provision exempting Waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing claims of adverse possession after 12 years of unlawful occupation.
  7. Repeal and Renaming: The Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, is repealed, and the 1995 Act is renamed to reflect its focus on management, empowerment, and efficiency.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, reviewed the bill and incorporated 14 amendments proposed by NDA members, rejecting 44 suggested by the opposition, before its passage in the Lok Sabha.

Points of Opposition

The bill has faced fierce resistance from opposition parties, Muslim organizations, and community leaders, who argue it undermines religious autonomy and minority rights. Key points of contention include:

  1. Violation of Religious Freedom: Critics argue that appointing non-Muslims to Waqf Boards violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious communities the right to manage their own affairs. They contrast this with laws governing Hindu or Sikh endowments, which restrict membership to their respective communities.
  2. Threat to Waqf Properties: The removal of “Waqf by user” is seen as a threat to historical properties like mosques and graveyards lacking formal deeds, potentially enabling government takeovers or legal challenges by encroachers.
  3. Centralization of Power: Shifting dispute resolution to state officials is criticized as an overreach by the government, reducing the autonomy of Waqf Boards and Tribunals. Opponents fear biased rulings favoring government interests, especially in cases of disputed land.
  4. Retrospective Concerns: Although the JPC clarified that the law won’t apply retrospectively to registered properties, ambiguity remains, fueling fears of property loss among Muslims.
  5. Constitutional and Federalism Issues: The opposition labeled the bill “unconstitutional,” alleging it dilutes federalism by empowering the central government and state officials over community-managed institutions. They argue it targets Muslims, undermining India’s secular fabric.
  6. Procedural Lapses: The opposition accused the government of rushing the bill through Parliament with insufficient time for amendments, calling it a “bulldozing” of legislation.

Government’s Defense

The NDA defends the bill as a necessary reform to curb corruption, enhance transparency, and empower marginalized Muslims, particularly women and children. They cite historical reports, like the Sachar Committee (2006), which recommended Waqf reforms due to mismanagement. The government emphasized that the bill does not interfere with religious practices, only administrative oversight, and that without these changes, even public assets like Parliament could be claimed as Waqf property.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, represents a bold attempt to modernize the management of Waqf properties in India, addressing the long-standing issues of inefficiency and misuse. However, its passage has deepened political and communal divides, with the opposition framing it as an assault on Muslim identity and constitutional rights. As the bill moves to the Rajya Sabha and potentially faces legal challenges, its implementation and impact remain uncertain. For now, it stands as a contentious chapter in India’s ongoing debate over secularism, governance, and minority rights.