Waqf Bill Passed: Transparency Triumph or Trust in Tatters?

(toc) #title=(Table of Content)

At 1:57 AM on April 3, 2025, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 with 288 votes in favor and 232 against, marking the end of a 12-hour marathon debate. This contentious legislation, renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill, seeks to overhaul the management of Waqf properties—assets dedicated under Islamic law for religious and charitable purposes. With India holding the world’s largest Waqf estate, comprising over 8.7 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres, the bill’s passage has ignited a firestorm of opinions. This blog post delves into its positive clauses, negative implications, and proposes a way forward to navigate this polarizing reform.

A Step Toward Modernization and Equity

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 introduces several provisions that proponents argue will bring much-needed transparency and efficiency. 

First, the mandate for digital registration of all Waqf properties within six months via a centralized portal is a game-changer. This move aligns with India’s tech-driven governance initiatives, promising to curb the 50% of properties whose status remains unknown due to poor documentation. By automating records, encroachments—estimated at 7%—and litigation—2%—could be reduced, unlocking the Sachar Committee’s estimated Rs 1.2 lakh crore market value for community benefit.

Second, the bill enhances inclusivity by mandating representation of at least two Muslim women on state Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, alongside non-Muslim members. This addresses long-standing critiques of gender exclusion, where women’s inheritance rights were often sidelined, and aims to diversify decision-making. The inclusion of non-Muslims, though controversial, is framed as a step toward secular administration, mirroring practices in other religious endowments like Hindu trusts, which rarely include non-Hindus.

Third, the shift of survey powers from Survey Commissioners to District Collectors, aligned with state revenue laws, aims to resolve disputes more efficiently. The removal of Section 40, which allowed Waqf boards to unilaterally declare properties as Waqf, addresses allegations of misuse—such as the Karnataka Wakf Board land scam—where private or government lands were arbitrarily claimed. Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju highlighted cases like the Cherai village in Kerala, where Christian families lost land to Waqf claims, underscoring the need for oversight. Additionally, the bill reduces the mandatory contribution from Waqf institutions to boards from 7% to 5%, easing financial burdens, and mandates audits by state-appointed officers or the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) for properties earning over Rs 1 lakh, ensuring accountability.

Risks to Autonomy and Community Trust

Despite its intentions, the bill’s negative clauses have sparked fierce opposition, particularly from Muslim organizations and the INDIA bloc. The elimination of the “Waqf by user” doctrine—where properties gain Waqf status through long-term religious use without formal documentation—threatens the legal standing of countless mosques, graveyards, and shrines. Critics argue this could destabilize assets managed informally for generations, with Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi noting that 4.02 lakh of the 8.7 lakh properties fall under this category. The retrospective application risk, though mitigated by JPC recommendations to protect pre-registered properties, still looms large for unregistered holdings, potentially affecting 90% of Waqf assets.

Another contentious provision requires individuals to have practiced Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf, a criterion deemed arbitrary by AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi. This excludes recent converts and raises questions about defining “practicing Muslim”—a subjective standard that could invite discrimination. The transfer of dispute resolution from Waqf tribunals to District Collectors and High Courts, with a 90-day appeal window, is seen as diluting Muslim autonomy over their endowments, violating Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious communities the right to manage their affairs. Opposition leaders like Owaisi and Congress’s Imran Masood argue this centralizes power, echoing concerns about the government’s broader agenda to regulate minority institutions.

The inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, while framed as inclusive, is criticized as hypocritical. Hindu and Sikh endowment boards exclude non-followers, yet no similar diversification is proposed for them. This asymmetry, coupled with reports of government properties being reclaimed from Waqf status, fuels fears of land grabs—exemplified by the Thiruchenthurai village case in Tamil Nadu, where a 1,500-year-old Hindu temple was claimed by the Waqf board. The opposition, including Trinamool Congress’s Kalyan Banerjee, warns that this could render Waqf boards “toothless,” undermining their constitutional role.

Bridging Divides and Ensuring Equity

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025’s passage in the Lok Sabha is a done deal, but its journey through the Rajya Sabha and implementation will test India’s secular fabric. The government’s narrative of modernization and transparency must be balanced with community trust. Here’s a pragmatic way forward:

First, the government should initiate a transparent consultation process with Muslim stakeholders, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which has protested the bill. A joint task force could review contentious clauses like “Waqf by user” and the five-year rule, ensuring they don’t disproportionately harm informal endowments or new converts. Phased implementation, starting with pilot projects in states like Uttar Pradesh with large Waqf holdings, could allow for adjustments based on real-world feedback.

Second, safeguards must be institutionalized to protect religious autonomy. An independent oversight body, comprising Muslim scholars and legal experts, could oversee Collector decisions, ensuring they align with Islamic law and constitutional rights. This would address fears of government overreach while leveraging state expertise in dispute resolution.

Third, public awareness campaigns are essential to counter misinformation. The NDA’s claim that the bill won’t interfere with mosques or religious practices needs robust evidence—perhaps through case studies of successful Waqf reforms in Malaysia or Turkey, where state oversight coexists with community input. Simultaneously, the opposition’s “anti-Muslim” label requires scrutiny; data on how many properties were misused under the 1995 Act could clarify the reform’s necessity.

Finally, the bill’s success hinges on execution. Training District Collectors in Waqf nuances, ensuring digital portals are accessible to rural Mutawallis (administrators), and conducting regular audits with community representation could prevent bureaucratic overreach. The reduced 5% contribution should be reinvested into community projects—schools, hospitals, or orphanages—demonstrating tangible benefits to Muslims, who, as Rijiju noted, remain poor despite vast Waqf wealth.

A Pivotal Moment for Governance and Trust

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025’s passage is a pivotal moment, reflecting the NDA’s push for centralized efficiency against a backdrop of minority distrust. Its positive clauses—digitization, gender inclusion, and accountability—hold promise for unlocking Waqf potential, but the negative clauses risk alienating a community already wary of government intent. The way forward lies in dialogue, safeguards, and execution that prioritize equity over control. As the bill moves to the Rajya Sabha, where the NDA holds a slim majority, its final shape will shape India’s secular narrative. Stakeholders on all sides must seize this opportunity to turn contention into collaboration, ensuring Waqf reforms uplift rather than divide.