THE CONTEXT: In April 2025, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 received Presidential assent amid widespread legal and public scrutiny over its provisions mandating centralised digital control, altered board compositions, and re-registration of over 6 lakh waqf properties. The Supreme Court, responding to constitutional challenges, imposed a temporary stay on key sections, citing concerns over religious autonomy, federalism, and minority rights.
KEY PROVISIONS – THEN VS. NOW:
| Provision Area | Waqf Act, 1995 (Original) | Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (New Changes) |
| Name of the Act | Waqf Act, 1995 | Renamed as Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act |
| Eligibility to Create Waqf | No minimum period required to practise Islam | Only Muslims who have practised Islam for at least 5 years can dedicate property as waqf |
| Waqf-by-User Doctrine | Recognised (based on long-term uninterrupted religious use) | Prospectively abolished; existing waqf-by-user properties valid unless disputed |
| Suo Motu Classification (Sec 40) | Waqf Boards could classify property as waqf without formal documentation | Power repealed; only formal documentation allowed |
| Composition of Waqf Boards | Predominantly Muslim representation; CEO had to be a Muslim | Inclusion of at least 2 non-Muslim members; CEO no longer required to be a Muslim |
| Property Registration Mechanism | Registration and surveys handled by State Waqf Boards and Commissioners | Centralised digital portal created and controlled by Union Government for registration and certification |
| Surveying Authority | Conducted by Survey Commissioners appointed by State Waqf Boards | Shifted to officers of rank above District Collector, designated by State/Union Government |
| Limitation Act (Section 107) | Waqf properties exempted from adverse possession claims | Repealed – waqf properties now subject to claims of adverse possession after 12 years |
| Portal and Database | WAMSI (since 2010) used for record digitisation by State Boards | Now mandatory registration and revalidation through new centralised portal under Union Ministry |
| Application of Act (Sec 2 Proviso) | Applicable to all waqf properties except Durgah Khawaja Saheb | Now allows Muslim endowments outside waqf law to be governed under general public charity law |
UNADDRESSED AND EMERGING ISSUES FROM THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025:
| Category | Issue | Explanation and Implications |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Constitutional Rights | Violation of Articles 25 & 26 Article 14 Violation (Equality) | The five-year Islam practice requirement for waqf creation and inclusion of non-Muslims in religious boards may infringe on freedom of religion and the autonomy of religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The criteria for religious eligibility and centralised governance for one community, without similar reforms for other religious endowments, may constitute unequal treatment. |
| 2. Federalism | Over-centralisation of Waqf Governance Dilution of State Waqf Boards | Transfer of waqf property registration, surveys, and certification to the Union Government undermines state authority under Article 246 (Concurrent List) and disturbs the federal balance. Their roles are reduced to data-entry and compliance bodies, stripping them of autonomy and decision-making power. |
| 3. Legal Ambiguity & Implementation Gaps | Adverse Possession Risk Ambiguity in 'Contrivance Clause' | Repealing Section 107 (exemption from Limitation Act) may enable illegal occupiers to legally claim ownership after 12 years of possession, threatening over 6 lakh waqf assets (WAMSI data). Vague language regarding disqualification based on "contrived" waqf intentions opens room for arbitrary denials or revocation of genuine waqfs. |
| 4. Waqf-by-User Doctrine | Prospective Abolition Contradicts Judicial Precedent | The SC's Ayodhya judgment (2019) validated the concept of waqf-by-user. The amendment contradicts this precedent without sufficient reasoning. |
| 5. Disregard for Stakeholder Consultation | JPC & Minority Inputs Ignored | Despite deliberations, none of the 14 accepted amendments came from opposition or minority members, limiting participatory law-making. |
| 6. Ambiguity Around Secular Accountability | No Reforms for Other Religious Trusts | Targeted reforms for waqf properties alone raise concerns of selective oversight. No parallel digitisation or transparency mandates exist for Hindu temple trusts, Christian missions, or Sikh gurdwaras. |
| 7. Judicial Challenges and Litigation | High Litigation Potential | Multiple petitions in the Supreme Court and High Courts have been admitted, challenging the Act’s constitutional validity — delaying and destabilising implementation. |
| 8. Risk of Communal Polarisation | Perception of Targeting Muslim Institutions | In the absence of similar scrutiny across other faiths, the Bill risks fuelling identity-based grievance and social unrest. |
| 9. Undermining the Principle of Irrevocability in Waqf Law | Retrospective Loopholes for Deregistration | The new proviso under Section 2 allows pre-existing waqfs to be converted into general charitable trusts, violating the Islamic legal maxim: “Once a waqf, always a waqf.” |
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL CHALLENGES IN THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025:
1. Expertise Deficit and Knowledge Dilution: Transfer of surveying authority from specialised Waqf Commissioners to generalist District Collectors risks reducing the process to a bureaucratic tick-box exercise.
-
- Islamic jurisprudential nuances (e.g., Hanafi vs. Shafi interpretations of wakif rights, masraf usage, waqf-ul-awlad) require madrasa-trained legal understanding.
- The risk is clerical classification of sacred, charitable, or mixed-use waqf assets without recognising religious, historical, and jurisprudential intent.
2. Risk of Political Capture and Patronage Politics: The nominated membership model weakens community ownership and could mirror politicisation seen in some Hindu Temple Trusts (e.g., Karnataka Muzrai Boards).
-
- Nomination allows ruling governments to place loyalists in sensitive religious administration roles, undermining autonomy.
- Without elections, representation of local mutawallis, madrasa teachers, and scholars is suppressed, breeding bureaucratic disconnect.
3. Large-scale Denotification and Monetisation of Religious Assets: The new centralised database structure, combined with abolition of waqf-by-user and ambiguous re-registration requirements, opens avenues for large-scale property delisting.
-
- Case Study: Antilia Orphanage Land (Mumbai) — formerly waqf land sold for ₹21.5 crore (vs. market value ₹200+ crore); challenge pending in SC. The new law could retrospectively weaken waqf claims and allow high-value properties to be reclassified as “charity land”.
- Constitutional Violation: This contradicts the Islamic legal maxim of “waqf la yurjaʿu” (waqf cannot be undone) and potentially violates Article 26(d) – right to manage religious property.
4. Litigation Overhang and Judicial Uncertainty: As of April 2025, there are parallel legal suits in nine High Courts and the Supreme Court, challenging core provisions of the amendment.
-
- This creates a legal limbo for governance, especially for projects involving waqf land like schools, hospitals, and hostels.
- SC in its interim order (April 2025) flagged risks to status quo ante, warning that any retroactive actions may result in rights violations post facto.
- Welfare projects on waqf land may stall due to uncertain legal titles, affecting minority welfare delivery.
5. Fiscal Under-utilisation and Broken Development Promises: Between 1974–2023, only ₹63 crore disbursed under the Shahari Waqf Sampatti Vikas Yojana, against an estimated development potential of ₹3,000 crore.
-
- The mismatch reveals a chronic failure in translating waqf land potential into social development outcomes — caused by corruption, lack of expertise, and bureaucratic inertia.
- Thousands of properties remain encroached or idle due to title disputes, lack of infrastructure, and legal ambiguities.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Co-operative-Federal Digital Architecture: Anchor the new GIS portal in a Model MoU with States, sharing real-time land-record APIs while letting State Waqf Boards retain first-level verification—mirroring GSTN’s “dual control” to honour Art 246 federal balance.
- Fiscal incentive: 10 % matching grant from the 15th FC untied funds for States hitting 95 % data-purity within 18 months.
- Outcome-oriented KPIs, audited by CAG, create backward linkage to opaque paper registers and forward linkage to smart-city planning maps.
- Waqf Development Corporation (WDC) as Social-Impact SPV: Capitalise ₹5,000 cr via 51 % community equity, 24 % NIIF, 25 % green bonds; lease idle plots for affordable hostels, micro-clinics, EV-charging hubs—estimated ₹3,700 cr annual yield (NITI Aayog, 2024).
- Ring-fence proceeds in an escrow reinvested in minority scholarships, echoing Malaysia’s MARA
- Mission Karmayogi – Waqf Cadre Upskilling: Introduce a mandatory 40-hour e-module on Islamic endowment law, GIS cadastral mapping and ADR, co-certified by NALSAR & IIPA, for IAS/PCS officers deputed as District Collectors.
- Addresses today’s expertise deficit after Survey Commissioners were replaced, ensuring procedural due process under Art 14.
- Gamified dashboards (Bronze-Silver-Gold badges) publicly rank districts, creating a virtuous competition akin to Swachh Survekshan.
- Blockchain-Secured Land Ledger & Public Dashboard: Pilot a “Waqf-Chain” layer on Telangana’s Dharani stack—hash each deed plus time-stamped drone imagery; smart contracts auto-flag mutations to Boards within 24 hrs.
- Cuts average title-dispute time from 7.6 yrs to <18 months (World Bank Ease-of-Doing-Business metric), blocking adverse-possession fraud post-Sec 107 repeal.
- Algorithmic transparency fulfils SC’s Justice K.S. Puttaswamy dictum on informational privacy while empowering citizens to crowd-audit encroachments.
- Fast-Track Waqf Tribunals 2.0 under Art 323-B: Constitute zonal e-tribunals chaired by retired HC judges, with a Sharia scholar and land-surveyor as technical members; enable virtual hearings to cut travel costs.
- Andhra Pradesh’s 2019 pilot cleared 75 % backlog in two years, raising annual rent recovery by ₹112 cr.
- Integrate ODR (online dispute resolution) to dovetail with Gram Nyayalayas, bridging formal and community justice systems.
- National Endowment Regulatory Authority (NERA) for Pan-Faith Parity: Modelled on the UK Charity Commission, NERA would audit Hindu devaswoms, Sikh gurdwaras, church trusts and waqfs alike, satisfying Art 14 equality and CJI Khanna’s query on “reciprocal minority seats”.
- Cross-faith audit parity quells perceptions of selective oversight, reinforcing constitutional secularism envisaged by the Sarkaria Commission.
- Annual “Social Return on Assets” (SRA) index—published in Economic Survey—creates forward linkage to evidence-based budgeting and backward linkage to opaque balance sheets across faiths.
- Co-operative-Federal Digital Architecture: Anchor the new GIS portal in a Model MoU with States, sharing real-time land-record APIs while letting State Waqf Boards retain first-level verification—mirroring GSTN’s “dual control” to honour Art 246 federal balance.
THE CONCLUSION:
A truly just waqf reform must harmonise constitutional secularism with community dignity, transforming underutilised assets into engines of inclusive development and interfaith equity. India must now lead with a model that combines digital integrity, pluralistic oversight, and ethical federalism, setting a global precedent in faith-based governance.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizens a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy. 2015
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the implications of centralised digital control and re-registration mandates under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on the principles of cooperative federalism and minority rights. Suggest innovative institutional solutions to balance governance and constitutional safeguards.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word