The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Balancing Transparency and Community Autonomy in India’s Property Reforms

Abstract

India’s centuries-old system of Islamic charitable endowments has undergone a historic change with the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which mandates digitization, non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards, professionalized management, and stronger enforcement measures. The law, which was passed after much public and parliamentary discussion, aims to address persistent problems with encroachment, poor management, and revenue loss that impact more than 9.4 lakh acres of waqf property worth 1.2 lakh crore. Critics, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, condemn it as an attack on minority rights under Article 26 and federal autonomy, while supporters praise it as a transparency-driven reform in line with Digital India and good governance. The historical background, significant clauses, constitutionality, and sociopolitical ramifications of the Act are all thoroughly examined legally in this article. It assesses whether the 2025 amendments strengthen marginalized communities through accountability or undermine religious autonomy through state overreach, drawing on court decisions, legislative reports, and recent litigation. The Act sits at the nexus of public policy, religion, and law in a plural democracy, with several Public Interest Litigations pending in High Courts and a potential Supreme Court battle.

Introduction

The administration of Waqf properties is a reflection of India’s dedication to religious pluralism within the complex fabric of its multicultural legal legacy. Under Islamic law, these endowments—which are derived from the Arabic word “waqf,” which means “detention” or “holding”—represent irrevocable dedications of property for religious, philanthropic, or pious purposes. Waqfs in India date back to the time of the Delhi Sultanate and have grown into a huge network that now comprises more than 8.7 lakh registered properties, including mosques, dargahs, schools, hospitals, and agricultural lands totaling about 9.4 lakh acres. These assets, which are estimated to be worth 1.2 lakh crore, have enormous potential for the betterment of the community but have been hampered by conflicts, encroachments, and ineffective administration. The fundamental framework for their governance was established by the Waqf Act of 1995, which established a Central Waqf Council and state-level Waqf Boards to manage registrations, surveys, and dispute settlement. But enduring issues like illicit employment, false claims, and murky financial transactions required reforms. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is a controversial law that was approved by Parliament in March 2025 following protracted discussions and protests. The Act, which was introduced by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, attempts to address long-standing complaints brought to light in reports such as the 2011 Joint Parliamentary Committee and the 2006 Waqf Inquiry Committee by introducing transparency, digitization, and accountability into waqf administration.

However, a firestorm has been sparked by this reform. Supporters see it as crucial to releasing the socioeconomic benefits of waqf, while critics, including Muslim advocacy organizations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), contend it violates federal principles and minority rights. More than a dozen Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed in high courts contesting its constitutionality as of November 2025, and the Supreme Court is expected to make a decision by the middle of 2026. The provisions, historical foundations, legal ramifications, and wider implications of the Act are examined in this article, which provides a fair assessment of whether it signals danger or progress.

Historical Evolution: From Sacred Trusts to State Scrutiny

India’s colonial and post-colonial histories are inextricably linked to the country’s waqf story. Waqfs thrived as social welfare tools during the Mughal era, providing funding for everything from irrigation canals to orphanages. But after judicial skepticism in cases like Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak v. Russomoy Dhur Chowdhry (1894), the British Raj took a more practical approach, passing the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, to legitimize family waqfs (wakf-alal-aulad). The first comprehensive post-independence law was the Wakfs Act of 1954, which established advisory boards to guard against poor management.

A significant step forward was taken in 1995 when the Act gave Waqf Boards quasi-judicial power to investigate properties, evict encroachers, and collect debts. The idea of “waqf by user,” which acknowledged long-standing religious use as legitimate dedication without official deeds, was introduced. Systemic problems remained in spite of these advancements. The Sachar Committee Report (2006) presented a sobering picture: boards tainted with political patronage, 70% of waqf lands encroached upon, and annual losses exceeding ₹1,600 crore as a result of inadequate revenue collection.

Calls for change were heightened by high-profile scandals. The board was dissolved and CBI investigations were conducted as a result of the Telangana Waqf scam in 2012, which involved the theft of 1,500 acres valued at ₹20,000 crore. Similar to this, disagreements over desirable urban plots—such as the Karnataka Board’s claim to 123 acres of waqf land in Bengaluru—uncovered gaps in the evidence. Only 60% of properties were digitalized by 2020, despite judicial interventions such as the Supreme Court’s 2004 order for thorough surveys in Karnataka Board of Waqf v. State of Karnataka.

By 2024, the government used the Directive Principles of Article 44 to support its intervention in the face of growing urbanization and land scarcity, citing similarities to temple board reforms in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the 2025 amendment is the result of decades of postponed accountability rather than a sudden change.

Core Provisions: A Blueprint for Modernization

40 sections of the Parent Act are amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which also introduces revolutionary changes to registration, governance, finance, and enforcement. Universal digitization and registration is its cornerstone. Using GIS mapping and Aadhaar-linked verification, Section 3A requires that all waqf properties, both movable and immovable, be registered on a centralized National Waqf Portal within 24 months. Real-time tracking is made possible by this integration with the Digital India Land Records Modernization Program, which also lessens the “paper waqfs” that contribute to litigation. Penalties for non-registration can reach ₹1 lakh, and boards are held accountable for any infractions.

The goals of governance reforms are professionalism and inclusivity. Section 14 restructures Waqf Boards to include at least two non-Muslim members nominated by the state government, alongside mandatory representation for women (at least 30%) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In an effort to professionalize operations, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position, which was previously held by waqf insiders, now requires a competitive exam and five years of administrative experience. With 7% of board revenues designated for a national corpus fund, Section 32A gives the Central Waqf Council the authority to establish legally binding rules regarding audits and investments.

Enforcement systems are significantly improved. *Tribunals* under Section 83 are given more authority, including the ability to attach contested properties and initiate summary eviction proceedings within 180 days, which is based on the SARFAESI Act’s timeliness. Repeat offenders risk imprisonment and fines of up to ₹5 lakh. Importantly, Section 5B prohibits opportunistic claims on public or private lands by imposing a five-year “cooling-off” period for new waqf declarations. This is a direct response to instances such as the Tamil Nadu temple-waqf dispute in 2023.

Annual e-filings of income-expenditure statements are used to increase financial transparency; inconsistencies lead to CAG audits. If mismanagement is demonstrated, boards may be replaced for a period of three years and mutawallis (trustees) must receive training. The 4 lakh pending waqf suits that are clogging tribunals are eased by the decriminalization of technical violations (such as delayed filings), which shifts the focus to civil remedies. Despite their bureaucratic nature, these provisions promise a paradigm shift away from ad hoc charity and toward sustainable endowment management.

Constitutional and Legal Scrutiny: Fault Lines and Fortifications

The Act’s ability to navigate India’s constitutional constellation will determine its legality. By enforcing uniform standards and avoiding capricious board decisions that favored insiders, it initially appears to be in line with Article 14’s equality mandate. According to a 2025 NITI Aayog estimate, digitization could generate ₹12,000 crore yearly for healthcare and education in Muslim communities, furthering the socialist directive for resource optimization found in Article 39(b).

But this facade is broken by fault lines. The main battleground is Article 26, which gives religious denominations the freedom to run their affairs. By citing Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), in which the Supreme Court shielded fundamental denominational functions from state interference, the AIMPLB claims that non-Muslim board members violate “essential religious practices.” In conflict with the property protections of Article 300A and the Waqf Act’s own “by user” doctrine, the five-year ban on new waqfs runs the risk of retroactively invalidating previous dedications.

Federalism causes conflict. Waqf encourages shared jurisdiction as a concurrent list subject (Entry 10, religious endowments); however, if states object, central overrides, such as required portal integration, may violate Article 254’s repugnancy clause. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) is cited in PILs filed in the High Courts of Allahabad and Madras to criticize executive overreach, specifically the appellate role of the district collector, which, according to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), blurs the separation of powers.

Precedents provide cautious hope. The Supreme Court emphasized non-interference in religious matters while upholding regulatory oversight to prevent abuse in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal (2006). Excessive fines may be declared unreasonable, and the Act’s penalty provisions must pass the Maneka Gandhi proportionality tests. Aadhaar linkage also raises data privacy issues, which could violate the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023.

Non-Muslim appointments are halted by interim stays in two HCs as of November 2025, indicating judicial hesitancy. Similar to Shayara Bano’s (2017) triple talaq case, a constitutional bench hearing might reinterpret “public interest” in minority laws.

Socio-Political Ripples: From Streets to Syncretism

The passage of the Act was not a calm process. The Lok Sabha session in February 2025 descended into chaos as opposition MPs tore up copies and accused the government of “land grab disguised as reform.” In remembrance of Shaheen Bagh, protests peaked in April when 50,000 people gathered in Hyderabad under the hashtag #WaqfZindabad and clashed with police. BJP leaders portrayed it as fighting the “waqf mafia,” which polarized voters ahead of state elections in Uttar Pradesh, where 15% of farmland disputes involve waqfs.

It has both potential and drawbacks from a socioeconomic standpoint. Optimized waqfs could help close the 20% employability gap for India’s 200 million Muslims, who are disproportionately urban poor (NSSO 2024). In accordance with the 2019 Muslim Women Act, the inclusion of women may strengthen inheritance claims. However, Deoband fatwas condemn it as “un-Islamic interference,” threatening radicalization in conservative hotspots like the madrasa belt of Bihar.

In comparison, it ignores India’s diversity and is similar to Malaysia’s 2020 waqf corporatization, which increased revenues by 40%. According to a 2025 Finology Legal survey, 72% of young Muslims are in favor of digitization, but 55% are concerned about cultural deterioration. With allies like the TDP calling for dilutions, it puts the NDA’s minority outreach to the test politically.

Obstacles to implementation include underfunded boards (allocated just ₹200 crore) and rural tech illiteracy, which could make inequality worse.

Conclusion

India’s reformist fervor is embodied in the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which links charity to accountability and digitizes faith for the digital age. Its provisions have the potential to drive out the ghosts of corruption and turn waqfs from burdensome legal proceedings into sources of empowerment. However, in the absence of compassionate modifications—like opt-out provisions for minor waqfs or judicial supervision over appointments—it encourages communal conflagration and constitutional crucifixion.

The way forward necessitates communication: SC-guided pilots, NGO-led training for mutawallis, and parliamentary committees for state inputs. Waqf reforms must combine openness and tolerance in order to fulfill Tagore’s vision of a peaceful India and guarantee that sacred trusts benefit the living without desecration of the divine. This balance includes both national soul-searching and legal evolution.

References

1. The Waqf Act, 1995 (No. 43 of 1995). 
2. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act No. 12 of 2025). 
3. Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913. 
4. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023).
5. Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak v. Russomoy Dhur Chowdhry, (1894) 22 IA 76 (PC). 
6. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282. 
7. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 10 SCC 779. 
8. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal, (2006) 1 SCC 558. 
9. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261. 
10. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
11. Sachar Committee Report, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India (2006). 

AUTHOR – Adv. BHAVYA GAUTAM