Understanding the Waqf Act
Why Was an Amendment Necessary?
Top 10 Key Changes in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025
1. Retention of 'Waqf by User'
2. Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Institutions
3. Increased Government Oversight on Surveys
4. Establishment of a Central Registration Portal
5. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963
6. Restructuring of Waqf Tribunals
7. Removal of CEO Religious Requirement
8. Stripping Boards of Power to Declare Waqf
9. Judicial Review and Right to Appeal
10. Religious Identity and Donorship
Criticism and Opposition
Support from Government and Allies
Conclusion: What Lies Ahead?
The Waqf Act, 1995 governs the management of Waqf properties in India. Waqf refers to a permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for religious, pious, or charitable purposes recognized by Islamic law.
Administered by Waqf Boards at state and central levels, these properties include mosques, graveyards, schools, orphanages, and shrines. The Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 seeks to significantly alter this long-standing legal structure.
🌐 Read: Understanding Waqf in India – A deep dive into the history, legal framework, and governance of Waqf properties.
According to the government, the amendment is driven by the need for:
Greater transparency and accountability.
Elimination of misuse and illegal occupation of Waqf lands.
Streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms.
Inclusion of modern technology for property management.
Ensuring secularism by making the system more inclusive.
However, critics see it as a move to centralize control and dilute the religious character of Waqf governance.
The original proposal to scrap the concept of waqf by user met with resistance. This doctrine recognizes land as Waqf based on uninterrupted community use, even without written documentation.
What's New:
The amended Bill retains this doctrine only for properties registered before the law's enactment. Future waqf claims must now rely on documentation, not customary use.
Controversy:
It safeguards historic properties but restricts future claims, potentially disenfranchising traditional practices.
🌐 Explore: Waqf by User Doctrine – The legal and historical significance of Waqf properties based on uninterrupted community use.
For the first time, non-Muslims can now be appointed to:
Central Waqf Council
State Waqf Boards
Waqf Tribunals
Key Additions:
At least 2 non-Muslim members must be part of Waqf boards and councils.
The requirement that the CEO be Muslim has been removed.
Why it Matters:
While the government touts this as a move for expertise and transparency, opponents view it as interference in religious institutions.
🌐 Learn More: Non-Muslim Inclusion in Waqf Boards – How the 2025 amendment changes the structure of Waqf governance.
Previously, surveys were handled by District Collectors. Now, only senior officers above Collector rank can conduct these surveys, especially if ownership is in dispute.
New Power:
These officers will act as final arbiters — replacing the Waqf Tribunals in property classification decisions.
Impact:
This centralizes decision-making and reduces the autonomy of Waqf Boards, potentially politicizing land disputes.
🌐 Read: Government Oversight in Waqf Surveys – Analyzing the shift in survey authority and its impact on Waqf autonomy.
A major digital push! The Bill proposes a centralized portal for:
Uploading details of all existing Waqf properties within 6 months.
Registering new waqf declarations digitally.
Missed the deadline?
Waqf tribunals can extend deadlines if sufficient cause is shown.
The 1995 Act exempted Waqf boards from the Limitation Act, allowing them to reclaim land even after decades.
What’s changing:
Section 107 is now being repealed. This means a 12-year limitation applies, weakening the Waqf Board’s ability to recover encroached land after that period.
Why it’s controversial:
Critics claim this will legalize illegal encroachments through adverse possession.
The tribunals get a makeover:
From 2 to 3 members.
Will now include:
A District Judge
A Joint Secretary-level officer
An expert in Muslim law
Continuation Clause:
Old tribunals will remain until the current chairperson's term ends.
🌐 Check Out: Judicial Review in Waqf Tribunals – A closer look at the new tribunal structure and appeal rights.
Earlier, the CEO of any Waqf Board had to be a Muslim.
That’s gone.
Now, the government can appoint any qualified person, regardless of religion.
Community Reaction:
Some say it dilutes religious understanding in administrative functions. Others welcome it as a move toward secular governance.
Under the 1995 Act, Waqf Boards could declare any property as waqf.
That power is now removed.
Only senior government officers, post-survey, can do this. The board must amend its records based on government directives.
The new Bill opens up a right to appeal Waqf Tribunal decisions in the High Court within 90 days.
Good News:
This improves judicial oversight and prevents arbitrary or biased decisions.
Caveat:
Only registered waqf properties can be subjects of suits. Exceptions exist but require sufficient cause to be proven.
To declare a waqf, a person must have practiced Islam for at least 5 years.
Problematic?
Yes. This could exclude new converts or sympathetic non-Muslims who want to donate in good faith.
🌐 Understand: Declaring a Waqf in 2025 – The legal requirements and religious prerequisites for establishing a Waqf today.
Who’s Speaking Out?
Opposition parties claim the Bill infringes on religious freedom.
Muslim Personal Law Board says it’s a violation of fundamental rights.
AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi argues it’s a land grab disguised as reform.
JD(U) has backed the Bill but requested that retrospective application be avoided.
Government’s Stand:
“We are protecting Waqf from misuse and ensuring that national interest prevails.”
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is not just a legal reform — it’s a socio-political flashpoint. On one hand, it promises digitization, transparency, and modern governance. On the other, it raises genuine concerns about religious autonomy, land rights, and minority representation.
Only time — and the Supreme Court, perhaps — will tell.
Final Thought:
Transparency and governance must not come at the cost of trust. Reform should empower, not exclude.
Copyright 2022 power by Ojaank Ias