EVOLVING WAQF POLICIES IN INDIA:LEGAL ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL PRACTICES AND MODERN REFORMS

Evolving Waqf policies in India

-Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata

Introduction

Waqf, an Islamic legal institution enabling perpetual dedication of property for religious or charitable

purposes, has been integral to India’s socio-legal fabric since the Delhi Sultanate. Governed by the Waqf

Act, 1995, the system faced criticism for inefficiency, corruption, and encroachment, with 7% of 870,000

registered properties under dispute. The 2025 amendments, rebranded as the Unified Waqf Management,

Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act, aim to address these challenges through

structural and procedural reforms. This article critically assesses the implications of these changes for

religious autonomy, property rights, and minority governance.

HISTORICAL AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

A. Evolution of Waqf Governance

The British-era Waqf Act, 1923, first codified Waqf management, replaced in 1954 and amended in 1995.

The 1995 Act empowered state Waqf Boards to survey properties, resolve disputes, and ensure revenue

generation. However, the Sachar Committee (2006) highlighted systemic failures: only ₹163 crore income

from assets valued at ₹6,000 crore, with 80% of income consumed by administrative costs.

B. Legislative Journey of the 2025 Amendment

Introduced in Lok Sabha on August 8, 2024, the bill underwent scrutiny by a Joint Parliamentary

Committee (JPC) chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. The JPC received 9.7 million public responses and

consulted stakeholders like Darul Uloom Deoband.

Key amendments included:

• Mandating non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards.

• Removing Waqf Boards’ authority to declare properties as Waqf.

• Requiring declarants to practice Islam for five years.

Passed by Lok Sabha (288–232) and Rajya Sabha (128–95) in April 2025, the Act received presidential

assent on April 5, 2025.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY AMENDMENTS

A. Formation of Waqf (Section 4)

• 1995 Act: Permitted creation through declaration, waqf by user (long-term religious use),

or waqf-alal-aulad (family endowments).

• 2025 Act: Restricts declarations to Muslims practicing Islam for five years. Abolishes waqf by

user and mandates family endowments to preserve female heirs’ rights.

• Implications: Prevents last-minute conversions from exploiting Waqf but risks excluding

historically recognized community properties like dargahs.

B. Governance Structure (Sections 14–16)

• 1995 Act: All board members (excluding the chairperson) were Muslim, with two women

members.

• 2025 Act: Requires two non-Muslim members per board and reserves seats for Shia, Sunni, and

backward-class Muslims. The Central Waqf Council expanded to 22 members, including up to

four non-Muslims.

• Implications: Enhances transparency but raises concerns under Article 26 (right to manage

religious affairs).

C. Property Determination (Sections 32–34)

• 1995 Act: Waqf Boards and Survey Commissioners identified Waqf properties.

• 2025 Act: District Collectors adjudicate disputes; government-owned lands lose Waqf status.

• Implications: Centralizes authority but may expedite resolution of 65,000 pending cases.

D. Legal Framework (Section 107)

• 1995 Act: Exempted Waqf disputes from the Limitation Act, 1963; tribunal rulings were final.

• 2025 Act: Applies Limitation Act, allowing adverse possession claims after 12 years. Tribunal

appeals permitted in High Courts.

• Implications: Risks legitimizing encroachments but aligns Waqf litigation with general civil

procedure.

POLITICAL DYNAMICS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

A. Supporters

• Ruling Coalition (NDA): BJP, JD(U), and TDP argued the reforms combat the "Waqf mafia" and

promote gender justice. PM Modi emphasized "empowerment through transparency".

• Legal Scholars: Endorsed applying the Limitation Act to prevent indefinite litigation.

B. Opponents

• INDIA Bloc: Congress, AIMIM, and TMC criticized the law as a "communal overreach."

AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi argued it violates Articles 25–26 by allowing state interference in

religious endowments.

• Muslim Organizations: The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) filed a Supreme

Court petition, contending the Act discriminates against Muslims under Article 15.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND PENDING CHALLENGES

A. Constitutional Issues

• Article 26 Conflict: Petitions allege non-Muslim board members infringe on Muslims’ right to

manage religious institutions.

• Gender Justice: While protecting female heirs aligns with Shariat principles, critics argue

restrictions on waqf-alal-aulad exceed state jurisdiction.

B. Operational Challenges

• District Collectors’ Role: Lack of expertise in Islamic law may complicate dispute resolution.

• Digital Management: The UMEED Portal’s rollout faces delays, with only 12% of Waqf

properties digitized as of April 2025.

CONCLUSION

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, reflects a contentious interplay between modernization and religious

autonomy. While proponents hail it as a corruption-curbing measure, opponents decry its potential to

dilute minority rights. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear challenges under Articles 14, 15, and 26, the

ruling will shape India’s approach to managing religious endowments in a pluralistic democracy. The

Act’s success hinges on balancing administrative efficiency with constitutional safeguards for minority

institutions.

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata.