INTRODUCTION
1. The Waqf Institution in Indian Law
In Islamic jurisprudence, a waqf is a perpetual, inalienable dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes. Once constituted, the property vests in God, rendering it incapable of sale, gift or inheritance. The income it generates is directed towards the designated charitable object, maintaining mosques, funding madrasas, supporting the indigent, or sustaining shrines.
The statutory framework governing Waqf properties in India has evolved over a century: from the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, through the Wakf Act, 1954, to the consolidating Waqf Act, 1995, which was significantly amended in 2013. Collectively, these enactments established State Waqf Boards, the Central Waqf Council, and Waqf Tribunals to administer approximately 8.72 lakh properties spread across 38 lakh acres, placing the Waqf Board among India’s largest landholders after the Defence Ministry and Railways.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, enacted as the UMEED Act, comprehensively amends the 1995 Act, incorporating 44 amendments across its core provisions. It triggered one of the longest parliamentary debates in recent memory and has generated an unprecedented volume of constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court of India.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
2. Legislative History and Joint Parliamentary Committee
The Bill was first introduced in the Lok Sabha on 8 August 2024 by the Minister of Minority Affairs. The following day, both Houses resolved to refer it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) comprising 21 Lok Sabha Members and 10 Rajya Sabha Members. The JPC held 38 sittings, engaged in 113 hours of deliberation, and consulted 284 stakeholders, including State Waqf Boards, State Governments, Ministries, and civil society organisations. Over one crore suggestions were received online. The JPC submitted its report to the Speaker on 31 January 2025, and the report was laid before both Houses on 13 February 2025.
The amended Bill incorporating 25 JPC recommendations was taken up for final passage in April 2025.
3. Debate in Lok Sabha
The Lok Sabha debated the Bill for over 12 hours, a duration that the government contrasted pointedly with the 5.5 hours afforded to the 2013 amendment under the previous administration. The Bill was passed on 3 April 2025.
3.1 Government’s Position
Union Home Minister Amit Shah led the government’s defence of the Bill. He argued that from 1913 to 2013, the land under the Waqf Board stood at 18 lakh acres, whereas after the 2013 amendment, this figure ballooned, suggesting systemic misuse. He cited concrete examples:
| State / Instance | Nature of Alleged Misuse |
| Karnataka | Claim made on the Dattapeeth temple land |
| Taliparamba, Kerala | Attempt to seize 600 acres on a 75-year-old claim |
| Telangana | Claim on 1,700 acres worth Rs. 66,000 crore |
| Assam (Morigaon) | Claim on 134 acres of government land |
| Haryana Gurudwara | 14 Marla Gurudwara land transferred to Waqf |
| Prayagraj (UP) | Chandrashekhar Azad Park declared Waqf property |
Home Minister Shah asserted that the role of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards would be strictly confined to administrative and financial oversight, explicitly excluding them from any participation in religious affairs. He described the Bill as an exercise in ensuring the property of Waqf benefits poor Muslims, rather than being ‘plundered by the wealthy’.
Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju reiterated that the Central Waqf Council would have a maximum of four non-Muslim members out of 22, and State Waqf Boards a maximum of three non-Muslim members out of 11. He contended that the Bill established a secular, transparent, and accountable system while preserving the essentially Islamic character of Waqf administration.
BJP’s Sudhanshu Trivedi framed the Bill as welfare legislation for poor Muslims, while AIADMK’s Dr.
- Thambidurai focused on the restructured composition of Waqf Boards. JP Nadda (Leader of the House) expressed hope for bipartisan support, emphasising the UMEED acronym as symbolically aspirational.
3.2 Opposition’s Position
The opposition mounted a sustained critique across multiple fronts:
| MP / Party | Key Argument |
| Dr. Syed Naseer Hussain (INC) | Called Bill ‘misleading’, alleged communal polarisation intent; noted BJP government’s failure to fund the Waqf Council or pay employees’ salaries |
| Imran Pratapgarhi (INC) | Expressed concern over potential impact on Muslim religious properties |
| Abhishek Manu Singhvi (INC) | Raised constitutional concerns regarding Articles 25 and 26 |
| Tiruchi Siva (DMK) | Alleged targeting of a specific religious community |
| Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) | Called the Bill discriminatory and unconstitutional; later filed first Supreme Court challenge on 4 April 2025 |
| Praful Patel (NCP) | Participated in debate; sought procedural clarifications |
4. Debate in Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha debated the Bill for approximately 14–17 hours before passing it on 4 April 2025 with 128 votes in favour and 95 against. The same session also passed the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2025, formally repealing the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923.
The President of India gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on 5 April 2025, bringing it into force. The passage was accompanied by nationwide protests, including violent unrest in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district that resulted in casualties and deployment of the Border Security Force on orders of the Calcutta High Court.
The 2025 Amendment is the most extensive revision to Waqf law in India’s post-independence history, amending 44 provisions. The principal changes are classified thematically below.
| A | Renaming the Statute
[UMEED Act] |
Section 1 of the Waqf Act, 1995, is amended to rename it the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act, 1995. The rename signals a rhetorical and substantive shift from mere administration to efficiency-led reform. |
| B | Eligibility to Create a Waqf
[Section 3(r) amended] |
Previously, any Muslim and, in some interpretations, even non-Muslims could create a Waqf. The amended Section 3(r) restricts this right to a person who: (i) has practised Islam for at least five years; and (ii) is the owner of the property being dedicated. The five-year practice requirement echoes the pre-2013 position and aims to prevent fictitious dedications. |
| C | Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’
[Section 3(r)(i) deleted] |
The concept of Waqf by User — by which properties historically used for religious or charitable Muslim purposes could be recognised as Waqf without a formal deed — has been prospectively abolished. The legislature justified this based on documented misuse, including claims over government land in Andhra Pradesh. Existing registered Waqf-by-user properties retain their status unless disputed or identified as government land. |
| D | Separation of Trusts from Waqf
[Section 2 proviso added] |
A new proviso to Section 2 explicitly excludes Muslim-created trusts governed by any general trust law from the scope of the UMEED Act, notwithstanding any court judgment. This restores full autonomy over trusts, preventing them from being reclassified as Waqf. |
| E | Non-Muslim Representation on Waqf Bodies
[Sections 9 & 14 amended] |
Both the Central Waqf Council (22 members) and State Waqf Boards (11 members) are required to include non-Muslim representation up to
4 and 3 non-Muslim members, respectively. The government’s rationale: Waqf Boards are statutory bodies with public-interest functions, and non-Muslims serve an administrative, not religious, role. |
| F | Women’s Representation [Sections 9 & 14 amended] | At least two Muslim women must be represented on both the Central Waqf Council and each State Waqf Board. Women must also receive their rightful inheritance before any Waqf-al-al-aulad (family Waqf) dedication, with special provisions for widows, divorced women, and orphans. |
| G | Sectarian Inclusivity
[Sections 9 & 14 amended] |
Representation from various Muslim sects — Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Aghakhani, and OBC Muslims is mandated on State Waqf Boards, ensuring broader intra-community inclusivity. |
| H | Government Land & Waqf Disputes [Section 3C inserted] | The most contentious new provision: where a government property is claimed as Waqf, an officer above the rank of Collector is empowered to investigate and determine the status. Critically, during the pendency of such an inquiry, the property is not treated as Waqf (sub-section 3), and revenue records may be corrected (sub-section 4). This provision was stayed by the Supreme Court (see Part V). |
| I | Removal of Section 40
[Section 40 deleted] |
The 1995 Act empowered Waqf Boards to suo motu declare any property as Waqf (Section 40). The 2025 Amendment deletes this provision, ending what critics characterised as arbitrary unilateral claims. |
| J | Appeal to the High Court
[Section 52 amended] |
The finality of Waqf Tribunal decisions is removed. Aggrieved parties may now appeal to the concerned High Court within 90 days of the Tribunal’s order, filling a significant judicial review gap. |
| K | Limitation Act Applied
[Section 107 substituted] |
The 1995 Act specifically excluded the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing Waqf Boards unlimited time to act against encroachments. The 2025 Amendment removes this exemption, applying standard limitation periods to Waqf property claims. |
| L | Technology & Central Portal
[New provisions] |
A centralised digital portal is mandated for Waqf property registration, audits, contributions, and litigation tracking. Mutawallis must register property details within six months of the Act’s commencement. |
| M | Annual Contribution Reduced
[Section amended] |
Mandatory annual contributions by Waqf institutions to State Waqf Boards are reduced from 7% to 5% of annual income, freeing more funds for charitable purposes. |
| N | Audit Reforms
[New provision] |
Waqf institutions with income exceeding Rs. 1 lakh must undergo annual audits by State-appointed auditors, replacing self-regulatory arrangements. |
| O | Tribunal Composition Retained
[Section 83 retained] |
The JPC rejected the initial proposal to reduce Waqf Tribunals to two members; the three-member composition, district judge, state officer at the joint secretary level, and expert in Muslim law, is retained. A structured selection process with fixed tenure is introduced. |
5. Filing of Petitions
Within hours of the Presidential assent on 5 April 2025, a record number of over 65 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The petitioners included:
- AIMIM Chief: Asaduddin Owaisi — first petition filed on 4 April 2025
- Congress MPs: Imran Masood, Udit Raj, Mohammad Jawed
- TMC: Mahua Moitra (MP)
- RJD: Manoj Kumar Jha (MP)
- AAP: Amanatullah Khan (Delhi MLA)
- Religious bodies: All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, Indian Union Muslim League
- Judicial challengers: Association for the Protection of Civil Rights; Arshad Madani
- Political parties: CPI, DMK, YSR Congress, and others
On 17 April 2025, the Supreme Court clubbed all petitions under the title In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (W.P.(C) No. 269/2025) and directed the Union Government to file a consolidated reply within one week.
6. Chronology of Proceedings
| Date | Event |
| 4 Apr 2025 | Presidential assent; Owaisi files first petition |
| 17 Apr 2025 | SC consolidates 65+ petitions; orders status quo on Waqf properties |
| 21 Apr 2025 | Centre voluntarily holds in abeyance ‘Waqf-by-user’ and non-Muslim appointment provisions |
| 25 Apr 2025 | Centre seeks dismissal; argues no blanket stay permissible |
| 29 Apr 2025 | SC declines fresh pleas; confirms only five consolidated petitions |
| 5 May 2025 | CJI Sanjiv Khanna defers hearing to successor CJI B.R. Gavai |
| 15 May 2025 | CJI Gavai’s bench takes up matter; lists for 20 May |
| 20–22 May 2025 | SC hears oral arguments; reserves order on interim relief |
| 15 Sep 2025 | SC delivers landmark interim order — partial stay on select provisions |
7. Constitutional Grounds of Challenge
| Constitutional Provision | Petitioners’ Argument |
| Article 14 (Equality) | An arbitrary five-year practice requirement and a government officer’s determinative power over property status |
| Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) | Interference with the Muslim community’s right to establish and dedicate property to religious purposes |
| Article 26 (Denominational Rights) | Inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf governance bodies; the government’s expanded control undermines the community’s right to manage its own religious affairs |
| Basic Structure | Allegations that the Act attacks the secular character of the Constitution by singling out one religious community’s endowment system |
PROVISIONS STAYED BY THE SUPREME COURT
On 15 September 2025, a Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih delivered the interim order in In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (2025 INSC 1116). The Court reaffirmed the constitutional presumption of validity that a statute passed by Parliament is presumed to be constitutional, and striking it down is reserved for the rarest of cases. Accordingly, the Court refused a blanket stay on the Act but stayed the following specific provisions:
| STAYED | Five-Year Practising Muslim Requirement [Section 3(r) — amended] | No mechanism exists to determine who qualifies as a ‘practising Muslim’; the requirement is prima facie capable of arbitrary exercise. Stayed until the State Governments frame appropriate rules and guidelines for such determination.
Constitutional Basis: Article 14 — arbitrary exercise of power |
| STAYED | Section 3C — Powers of Government Officer During Waqf/Government Land Inquiry
[Section 3C(2) proviso; sub-sections (3) and (4)] |
The amended Act allowed a government-designated officer above Collector rank to declare a property ‘not Waqf’ during inquiry, and permitted corrections to revenue records based solely on the officer’s determination without adjudication by a Tribunal or Court. The Court held this violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers: executive officers cannot conclusively adjudicate citizens’ property rights. Waqf properties must retain their status during inquiry; no dispossession; no third-party rights to be created until a Waqf Tribunal renders a final decision.
Constitutional Basis: Separation of Powers; Article 14 |
| NOT STAYED
(Modified) |
Non-Muslim Representation in Waqf Bodies | The Court did not stay the inclusion of non-Muslim members per se. However, it imposed cap-based directions: • Central Waqf Council (22 members): Maximum 4 non-Muslim |
| [Sections 9 & 14] | members. • State Waqf Boards (11 members): Maximum 3 | |
| non-Muslim members. • The ex officio Chairperson/CEO of | ||
| State Boards should, ‘as far as possible’, be Muslim. | ||
| These are interim directions, not final determinations. | ||
|
Constitutional Basis: Article 26(b) and (d) |
||
| NOT STAYED | Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’ | The Court declined to stay the prospective abolition of Waqf-by-user, accepting the government’s argument that it |
| [Section 3(r)(i) | was being misused to claim government land, e.g., Andhra | |
| deleted] | Pradesh cases. The Court found no prima facie arbitrariness | |
| in the legislature’s decision to abolish the concept | ||
| prospectively. Existing registered Waqf-by-user properties | ||
| remain protected. | ||
|
Constitutional Basis: Legislature’s prerogative — no prima facie invalidity |
| NOT STAYED | Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 | The Court upheld the application of general limitation periods to Waqf claims, observing that the earlier exemption | ||
| [Section 107 | amounted to a discriminatory advantage. Correction of this | |||
| substituted] | disparity was found to be constitutionally sound. | |||
|
Constitutional Basis: Article 14 — corrects earlier unequal treatment |
||||
|
RED = Stayed |
ORANGE = Not Stayed but Modified by Court |
GREEN = Not Stayed / Upheld |
||
The Court clarified that all its observations in the interim order are prima facie in nature and will not prevent any party from making further submissions on the Act’s validity when the matter is heard finally. The case remains pending before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
8. The Constitutionality Debate
The central constitutional tension in the UMEED Act lies between the state’s regulatory power over secular aspects of religious institutions and the denominational autonomy guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954 SCR 1055), the Supreme Court held that the right to manage religious affairs is a fundamental right protected under Article 26(b), impervious to legislative curtailment. However, in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996, the Court distinguished religious activities protected absolutely from secular activities associated with religious institutions subject to state regulation. The constitutionality of non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards will likely turn on whether Waqf Board functions are classified as primarily religious or predominantly secular-administrative.
The five-year practice requirement raises issues under Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 whether the classification is a reasonable one furthering a legitimate state interest. The Supreme Court’s stay on this provision suggests the Court’s preliminary view that, absent a verifiable mechanism, the provision is vulnerable to challenge as arbitrary under Article 14.
The Section 3C controversy implicates the doctrine of separation of powers enunciated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973, the foundational basic structure case, and reinforced in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997, which held that judicial review cannot be ousted. Vesting final determinative power over property rights in an executive officer, without independent adjudication, sits uncomfortably with Article 50 separation of judiciary from executive, read with Articles 32 and 226.
9. Policy Tensions
The UMEED Act attempts to balance two legitimate but competing imperatives: (i) preventing the misuse of Waqf law to claim public and private non-Muslim land, a documented and judicially acknowledged problem, and (ii) preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious communities to manage their own affairs. The Supreme Court’s interim order reflects precisely this tension: the Act is not stayed wholesale, validating the reform agenda, but its most executive-heavy provisions are checked, protecting fundamental rights.
CONCLUSION
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is constitutionally, politically, and sociologically significant. It represents the Indian Parliament’s most ambitious attempt to modernise the governance of 8.72 lakh Waqf properties, an estate of considerable religious, cultural, and economic importance. The legislative process was extensive: 38 JPC sittings, 113 hours of committee deliberation, over 26 hours of floor debate, and incorporation of 25 recommendations.
The Supreme Court’s interim order of 15 September 2025 strikes a nuanced constitutional balance. By refusing a blanket stay, it respects parliamentary sovereignty and the presumption of constitutionality. By staying the five-year practice requirement and Section 3C’s executive determinative powers, it protects against prima facie arbitrary executive overreach. By declining to stay the abolition of
Waqf-by-user, it acknowledges documented legislative rationale.
As the matter awaits final adjudication, the judgment in In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 promises to be a landmark clarifying the outer limits of state regulation of minority religious institutions and the scope of Articles 25 and 26 in the context of statutory endowment law.
