By | Yasir Sharief
New Delhi – The recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has stirred a political and social firestorm across the country, drawing sharp criticism from legal experts, opposition leaders, and minority rights groups. While the government hails the legislation as a step toward transparency and reform, detractors argue it threatens constitutional rights and undermines the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
The bill, which amends the Waqf Act of 1995, is being seen by critics as a politically motivated move by the BJP-led government to tighten control over Islamic charitable endowments, further fueling communal polarization in an already volatile atmosphere.
In Islamic law, Waqf refers to a permanent charitable endowment, typically in the form of land or property, designated for religious or philanthropic purposes. Once declared as Waqf, such property becomes inalienable—it cannot be sold, gifted, or inherited. Mosques, graveyards, schools, and orphanages are common examples of Waqf properties.
India’s Waqf system has been regulated under the Waqf Act, 1954, and subsequently amended through various legislative interventions—in 1959, 1964, 1969, 1984, 1995, and 2013—to improve governance, transparency, and protection against encroachments.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024—passed in early 2025—seeks to reform Waqf property management amid corruption allegations like the Karnataka Waqf Board Land Scam. It permits non-Muslims on Waqf Boards, sparking constitutional concerns, and shifts property surveys to district collectors, raising fears of state overreach. The bill scraps the ‘Waqf by user’ concept, risking heritage sites, and limits Waqf donations to those practicing Islam for at least five years, which critics call discriminatory. Renamed the UMEED Act, the government sees it as modernization, but many see it as undermining Waqf’s traditional role.
Prominent voices from across the political spectrum have expressed strong opposition. Kapil Sibal, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP, termed the bill “unconstitutional” during the Parliamentary debate, stating that it targets a specific community and erodes religious freedoms. Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM president and Lok Sabha MP, has challenged the bill in the Supreme Court, arguing it violates fundamental rights and aims to dismantle minority institutions under the guise of reform.
The passage of the bill has already led to deadly consequences. In Murshidabad, West Bengal, protests against the legislation turned violent on April 8. Three people were killed, over a dozen injured, and more than 100 were arrested. Protesters torched police vehicles, vandalized public property, and stormed the office of TMC MP Khalilur Rahaman. Disruptions also hit train services at Nimtita station. In response, the Calcutta High Court ordered the deployment of central paramilitary forces to restore order.
While the government insists the bill is necessary to streamline Waqf management and curb corruption, its critics argue that it marks a dangerous shift toward centralized control of minority institutions, threatening the pluralistic fabric of Indian democracy. As protests simmer and legal battles unfold, the Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 stands at the crossroads of constitutional debate, communal harmony, and the future of religious freedom in India.
Amid mounting backlash and unrest, the Supreme Court on April 17 took on record the Centre’s assurance that no waqf properties, including “waqf by user”, will be denotified, and no appointments will be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards until May 5. The court also granted the Centre a week to respond to petitions challenging the Act’s constitutional validity. With the inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf bodies at the heart of the controversy, the legislation now awaits further judicial scrutiny, leaving its future—and its broader implications for minority rights—hanging in the balance.
Yasir Sharief is a Mass Communication and Journalism graduate from Government Degree College Baramulla. He writes on socio-political, geopolitical, and religious issues
