Author: Shamim Shaikh
“The intent behind reforming waqf management may be legitimate, but bypassing religious autonomy and community history raises serious constitutional questions.”
Recently, this Act was passed in the Rajya Sabha, but when it was passed in the Lok Sabha, it became a highly debated issue—especially among the minority community and legal experts.
But what exactly is in this Act that’s making the Muslim community feel insecure? Why has it become such a major concern?
To understand all of this, we first need to understand what Waqf actually is.
But what’s actually in the Act? And why has it created such a wave of concern?
What is Waqf?
Before diving into the controversy, it is important to understand what Waqf means.
In Islamic Law, Waqf refers to an inalienable charitable endowment in Islamic law, typically involving the donation of a building, plot of land, or other assets for Muslim religious or charitable purposes. These properties cannot be sold, transferred, or used beyond their designated purpose.
In India, Waqf properties are governed under the Waqf Act, 1955, which laid out the framework for creation, management, and protection of such endowments. The Act was amended in 1995 and subsequently several times, with intervals.
In 2013 again amended this Act and introduced stricter measures for registration, empowering Waqf Boards to evict encroachers, and mandating detailed surveys. These changes aimed to increase transparency and accountability. However, the 2025 amendment brings a fundamental shift in control and oversight, reportedly centralizing authority and allowing greater state intervention—prompting fierce criticism from several quarters over concerns of autonomy and political misuse.
What is in the Waqf (amendment) Act, 2025?
Now that we understand what Waqf is, let’s explore what changes the new Act brings – and why it is causing such widespread concern.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has raised concerns about governmental intrusion into the management of waqf properties, including graveyards and mosques. The Act has also been criticized for potentially violating constitutional rights and eroding the rights of the Muslim minority in several ways.
Critics argue that the Act gives too much power to the central government, which could undermine the autonomy of State Waqf Boards and lead to the misuse of authority.
It increases government control
The new changes seem to really shift the balance of power when it comes to waqf matters. Now, the central government has more control, and that is a big shift from how things were earlier.
It looks like the role of the State Waqf Board has been reduced quite a bit – they do not hold as much authority as they used to. One of the biggest changes is that important decisions, like whether a property should be considered waqf or not, are no longer being made by religious experts. Instead, that power is now in the hands of District Collectors.
This move could raise a lot of questions about how religious matters are being handled and whether administrative officials are the right people to make such sensitive decisions.
Ownership Disputes Due to Removal of “Waqf by User”
The other major concern that’s come up is about ownership disputes, especially because the new Act removes the concept of “Waqf by User”.
Many mosques and graveyards were set-up hundreds of years ago, and back then, there was not always formal paperwork involved. Earlier , if a property had been used continuously for religious purposes, it was generally accepted as waqf under the “Waqf by User” principle. But now, with that principle gone, the Act demands formal legal proof of ownership.
And let’s be honest – finding such documents for centuries -old sites is going to be tough. This change could trigger a wave of disputes, with third parties or even the government stepping in to question the ownership of these long-established religious places.
Risk of Confiscation
With the tightened documentation requirements and greater government control, there is a real fear that properties lacking official papers may be labeled as “unauthorized” or “encroachments.”
This poses a threat to centuries-old religious sites, many of which have been maintained by communities without formal ownership records. The possibility of these properties being confiscated or repurposed is understandably alarming.
Changes in Representation and Management
Another big change that is raising eyebrows is the proposal to include non-muslims in waqf Boards. The government says it is all about promoting transparency and fairness, which sounds good on the surface.
But many people feel this could actually be seen as interference in religious affairs.
Waqf properties – especially sacred places like mosques and graveyards – aren’t just pieces of land; they’re tied to deep Islamic traditions and laws. Managing them properly often requires a strong understanding of those religious practices. Critics worry that non-muslim members, no matter how well intentioned, might not have the background needed to handle these responsibilities in a way that respects the faith.
The changes brought by the Act have left many people in the community feeling uneasy.
With so many graveyards and mosques lacking formal documentation – because they were established ages ago – there is a real risk that these places could face legal disputes or even be taken over by the government. What is more concerning is that the Act seems to reduce the community’s say in managing their own religious properties, while giving more power to the state. Critics believe this isn’t just about administration – it is about eroding religious autonomy and potentially infringing on the constitutional rights of the Muslim minority.
How does this Act violate constitutional rights and erode the rights of Muslim Minority?
Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi have taken the new Waqf Act to the Supreme Court, saying it’s a serious issue. According to them, the Act goes against the constitutional rights of the Muslim minority—especially the rights protected under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 29, and 300A. They believe it’s not just a legal matter but one that affects the community’s fundamental freedoms.
What’s the Main Objection?
The Waqf (Amendment) Act has entered the spotlight—but not for the right reasons. For many in the legal and minority rights community, this isn’t just a routine policy update. It’s being called a serious challenge to constitutional values like equality, religious freedom, and the right to property.
At its core, this Act tightens government control over Muslim Waqf properties. But here’s the bigger worry: Does it treat one religious community differently? Does it violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Let’s start with Article 14, which is all about the right to equality. The petitioners are saying that the way restrictions are being placed on Muslim Waqf properties feels totally unfair and arbitrary. Here is the thing – religious trusts from other communities, like Hindu and Sikh trust, are mostly allowed to manage their own affairs. But when it comes to Muslim waqf institutions, there is a lot more government control being imposed. That creates an uneven playing field.
According to them, this kind of unequal treatment – without any solid reason – goes against the principle of “manifest arbitrariness,” which basically means making unfair distinctions without logic.
Article 15 (Non-discrimination on grounds of religion)
Here’s another big concern. The Act says that a property can only be declared as waqf if it’s based on a “long-standing” religious practice. Now, think about someone who has just converted to Islam and genuinely wants to dedicate their property for religious purposes. Under this rule, they could actually be stopped from doing that. And that’s a problem, because this kind of condition isn’t part of Islamic law at all. It ends up discriminating against new Muslims just because they’re recent converts—which clearly goes against the idea of religious equality under Article 15.
Article 25 – Freedom of Religion
This is where things get even more personal. If someone wants to donate their property for a religious purpose out of their own free will, the new Act puts restrictions on that. And that’s a big deal, because it directly affects their fundamental right to practice and express their religion freely. Basically, the law is stepping into something that should be a personal religious choice, which many feel goes completely against what Article 25 stands for.
Article 26 – Right to Manage Religious Affairs
Here’s another major concern. The Act actually takes a lot of important powers away from the Waqf Board and gives them to the District Collector—like deciding whether a property is waqf or not. That’s a big shift, and it directly impacts the independence of religious institutions, which is supposed to be protected under Article 26(d). On top of that, the Act removes the idea of “waqf by user,” which used to recognize properties as waqf based on long-standing religious use. That principle had legal backing earlier, but now it’s just gone—leaving many such properties in a vulnerable spot.
Article 300A – Right to Property
This one’s pretty straightforward. If the government steps in and interferes with waqf properties without going through the proper legal process, it’s not just unfair—it’s actually a violation of the right to property under Article 300A. People have a legal right to their property, and that includes religious properties too. Skipping due process just isn’t okay.
What About Legal Precedents?
The petition also brings up some important past Supreme Court rulings. In the Shirur Mutt case, the Court clearly said that religious institutions should be free to manage their own affairs without interference. Then there’s the Ratilal Panachand Gandhi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that handing over control of religious property to secular (non-religious) authorities goes against the Constitution. So basically, the petitioners are saying—if the highest court has already protected this freedom in the past, how can this new Act go in the opposite direction?
What About the Role of Waqf Tribunals and Islamic Experts?
Here’s another issue that’s got people talking. The new Act cuts down the role of experts in Islamic law—basically, the very people who actually understand the nuances of waqf and can resolve disputes properly. Without their involvement, a lot of Muslims might feel like they can’t fully trust the legal system to handle their religious matters fairly. And the kicker? Other religious institutions don’t really face this kind of interference, which just makes the imbalance even more obvious.
Conclusion
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has triggered strong reactions not just because of what it proposes, but also because of what it represents—a potential shift in the relationship between the state and religious communities.
As we’ve seen, the Act touches upon deeply rooted religious practices and long-standing community-held beliefs. While the government insists that this is about reform, transparency, and better governance, many in the Muslim community view it as a significant overreach, potentially eroding constitutional protections and undermining religious autonomy.
This isn’t just a legislative debate—it’s also about identity, trust, and historical continuity. The implications go beyond legal reforms and reach into the very fabric of how religious rights are balanced in a secular democracy.
With the matter now before the Supreme Court, all eyes are on what could be a landmark judgment. The Court’s interpretation will not only determine the fate of this Act but may also redefine the scope of state involvement in managing religious affairs—particularly for minority communities.
It has been argued in the petition that the Act directly harms the Muslim community’s religious freedom, property rights, and institutional autonomy. In contrast, other religious communities continue to enjoy greater protection and self-governance under their respective trust laws. The petitioners strongly contend that this amendment increases state interference and disturbs the delicate balance between religious rights and secular governance.
As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear—this issue is not just about legal reform; it’s about the very principles of equality, freedom, and justice enshrined in the Constitution of India.
