Opinion | Waqf Law Overhaul: Balancing Faith, Governance And Justice
The overarching objective of these amendments appears to be to strike a better balance between protecting the sanctity of Waqf endowments, ensuring their proper management for the benefit of the community, and upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and due process for all stakeholders
A significant debate is brewing across India following the recent passage of the ‘Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill, 2025’ in the Lok Sabha. This legislation aims to overhaul the existing Waqf Act, 1995, a law that, along with its amendments, has been a subject of considerable discussion and, at times, controversy.
Understanding the historical trajectory of Waqf laws in India and the specific concerns surrounding the previous legislation is crucial to grasping the potential impact of this new bill.
related stories
The story of codified Waqf laws in India began in 1923 with the Mussalman Waqf Act. This initial step towards regulating religious endowments was followed by the more comprehensive Waqf Act, 1954, enacted in the early years of independent India. However, it was the subsequent amendments, particularly in 1995 and 2013, that significantly shaped the current landscape and fuelled the demand for the reforms proposed in the 2025 bill.
The Waqf Act, 1995, enacted by then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress Government, marked a turning point by granting quasi-judicial powers to the State Waqf Boards. This empowerment aimed to streamline the process of identifying and managing Waqf properties, reducing the need for protracted civil court battles. Apparently, it seemed like an act of balancing the damage done to the Congress party’s vote bank by the demolition of the Babri Masjid, built over the Ram Janmabhoomi Andolan led by the BJP. However, this very provision became a lightning rod for criticism. Concerns arose that the broad powers vested in the Waqf Boards, in determining whether a property constituted a Waqf, lacked sufficient checks and balances and could be prone to misuse.
These concerns were further amplified by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013, brought in by Sonia Gandhi through the PM Manmohan Singh-led Congress Government. This amendment was perceived by many as granting “draconian powers" to the Waqf Boards. Critics argued that the amended Act broadened the definition of Waqf to such an extent that it allowed for claims on properties with even a historical association with Muslims, regardless of formal Waqf dedication. This raised the spectre of retrospective claims and created significant uncertainty regarding property ownership across the country.
In Surat, Gujarat, the implications of these powers became starkly evident. The claim by the Waqf Board on the 500-year-old administrative building of the Surat Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the 2013 amendment served as a potent illustration of the perceived overreach. This incident ignited widespread debate and highlighted the potential for such claims to impact not only private individuals, but also public institutions and historically significant structures.
Adding to the discourse, the Sachar Committee Report (2006), while focused on the broader socio-economic status of Muslims in India, also touched upon the management of Waqf properties. The committee recommended measures such as the inclusion of non-Muslim experts in Waqf Boards, periodic audits of Waqf finances, and the digitisation of Waqf records to enhance transparency and efficiency. These recommendations underscored the need for improved governance within Waqf institutions.
A central criticism of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended in 2013, revolved around the limited scope for judicial review of Waqf Board decisions. The quasi-judicial nature of these decisions, coupled with restrictions on challenging them in civil courts, was seen as undermining the principles of natural justice and accountability. Furthermore, the absence of a strict statute of limitations for claiming Waqf property created an environment where claims could be made on properties after decades, leading to insecurity for current owners and hindering development. The pity is that the attachment of any property to Waqf can only be challenged in a Waqf Tribunal, and that consists of Muslim members only.
According to reports, 3.9 million acres of land have been claimed by the Waqf Board after the 2013 amendment. These claims include the Gyanvapi complex at the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor, the Surat Municipal Corporation admin building, the entire Tiruchendurai village in Tamil Nadu, the Kumbh Mela land of Prayagraj, the entire Bet Dwarka island, the Taj Mahal, over 200 properties in Delhi, including Rashtrapati Bhavan and Parliament House, the entire Hindu-majority Makhani village, including a Shivling, the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi complex, the ITC Hotel Bengaluru, the Tollygunge Club Kolkata, the Royal Calcutta Golf Club, Shahjahanpur, UP – 2,589 properties, including 2,371 government properties, the entire Jathlana village in Haryana, Rampur, UP – 3,365 properties, including 2,363 government properties, Jaunpur, UP – 4,167 properties, including 2,096 government properties, Bareilly, UP – 3,499, including 2,000 government properties, and in Bengaluru, the entire Eidgah ground, which is government land. Imagine this data is limited to a few properties available, but numerous lands and properties have been claimed under the new amendment by the Congress government in 2013.
The fact that Indian Waqf Boards wield more extensive and less regulated powers than their counterparts in any Muslim nation, including Saudi Arabia, further fuelled the demand for reform. The ability of Waqf Boards to initiate claims and potentially acquire properties based on broad interpretations of historical association, without robust mechanisms for challenge, was seen as an anomaly.
Moreover, numerous instances where Waqf Boards have taken control of properties with illegal constructions or encroachments have also added to the complexity of the issue. While the objective of claiming properties under Waqf is clear, the process and its impact on those currently occupying the land have often been contentious, raising questions about fairness and due process.
It is against this backdrop of historical evolution, contentious amendments, and persistent concerns that the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025, has been introduced. The bill seeks to address many of the criticisms levelled against the previous legislation.
The key proposed changes include:
- Stricter Definition of Waqf and Removal of “Waqf by User" (for future declarations): This aims to curb claims based solely on historical association without formal dedication.
- Exclusion of Government Property from Waqf: This directly addresses the issue of Waqf claims on government-owned land, as witnessed in the Surat case.
- Survey of Waqf Properties by District Collectors: This shifts the responsibility to revenue authorities, potentially bringing a more standardised approach.
- Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council: This aligns with the Sachar Committee’s recommendations for broader representation.
- Provision for Appeals to the High Court Against Tribunal Orders: This introduces a crucial layer of judicial review that was largely absent previously.
- Application of the Limitation Act, 1963, to Waqf Property Claims: This aims to bring legal certainty and prevent indefinite litigation.
The passage of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025, marks a significant step towards reforming the legal framework governing Waqf properties in India.
The overarching objective of these amendments appears to be to strike a better balance between protecting the sanctity of Waqf endowments, ensuring their proper management for the benefit of the community, and upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and due process for all stakeholders. Whether the new legislation will successfully address the long-standing concerns and create a more equitable and just system for the governance of Waqf properties remains to be seen.
The question here remains unanswered: After all, the Waqf Board is a public trust, so should it be treated as other trusts? Why, in a democratic, secular nation, does a religious body require governing public properties based on personal laws? While religious places like Hindu Mandirs are governed by state governments, why should 9.4 million acres of land remain useless while Muslims are living in slums? These questions are where the actual discussion should focus, thinking of a secular and just nation for all, equitable equally.
Gopal Goswami, PhD, is a Researcher, Columnist & Social Worker. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: