Author: Jessica Sana Minj, Hidayatullah National law University , Raipur
Abstract
The government’s vision of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, as a historic administrative and legislative change, has sparked intense and divisive discussions over minority rights, religious privileges, and India’s changing understanding of constitutional secularism. The Act aims to improve Waqf property administration, digitization, and protection while enacting stronger safeguards against mismanagement and encroachment. But the direct comments made by Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who claimed that minorities “receive more” than Hindus and that “whatever Hindus get, minorities also do, but not vice versa,” have heightened long-standing worries about systemic disparities in governmental assistance for various religious groups. The Act’s critics contend that it upholds a judicial system that gives minorities—Muslims in particular—preferential treatment, casting doubt on state neutrality and equality. Legal experts are still divided; some believe the Act violates the equality principle outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution, while others see it as a valid affirmative action measure under Articles 29 and 30.
To the Point
In response to criticism of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju claimed that government assistance for minorities, particularly under Waqf laws, surpasses that provided to the majority Hindu community. He underlined that the Act went through a previously unheard-of consultation process, rejecting claims of prejudice or opaqueness. The declaration rekindles discussions about minority rights, constitutional secularism, and the changing legal standing of religious properties in India.
Use of Legal Jargon
Secularism, nondiscrimination, state neutrality, specific provisions for minorities under Articles 29 and 30, and the state’s power to control religious endowments, particularly Waqf properties, are all at issue in this dispute. Affirmative action and fair categorization jurisprudence, as well as Articles 14 (Equality before the Law) and 25 (Freedom of Religion), are also discussed in the legal discourse.
The Proof
Minister’s Statement: According to Rijiju, minorities, especially Muslims, benefit from some programs, such as those connected to Waqf properties, that Hindus do not receive, whereas Hindus enjoy state advantages that are available to all people.
Waqf Amendment Act, 2025: Simplified dispute resolution procedures, strengthened fines for encroachments, and introduced extensive reforms in the administration, registration, and protection of Waqf holdings.
Consultative Process: To ensure inclusivity, the government says it has held in-depth discussions with a variety of stakeholders, including state Waqf boards, religious organizations, legal professionals, and opposition leaders.
Criticism: According to critics, the Act violates secular neutrality, maintains preferential treatment, and does not provide Hindu religious institutions—particularly temple endowments—with comparable protections.
Legal safeguards: The Act strengthens control by State Waqf Boards, mandates the digitization of Waqf property data, and establishes transparency standards.
Case Laws :
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 51
Examined the constitutional validity of dissolving religious trusts and state control over religious properties.
Md. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360
Discussed state powers regarding acquisition of religious sites and maintaining secular governance.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
Landmark judgment clarifying minority rights under Articles 29 and 30 vis-à-vis state interference.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case) (2019) 11 SCC 1
Reiterated equality and non-discrimination within religious spaces, highlighting state obligations toward religious neutrality.
Conclusion
Despite being framed as an administrative and governance reform, the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, has sparked important constitutional discussions on minority privileges, religious endowment regulation, and the secularism principle. Critics contend that the Act perpetuates structural asymmetries by providing Muslim religious properties with particular legal protections and institutional frameworks that are not equally extended to Hindu temples or other religious trusts, despite the fact that it introduces mechanisms for improved transparency, digitization of Waqf property records, and improved dispute resolution. The comments made by Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who acknowledged that minorities “receive more” than Hindus, have heightened worries about preferential treatment and state impartiality. The current legal debate is on whether this kind of discriminatory treatment violates Article 14’s guarantee of equality or is constitutionally permitted affirmative action under Articles 29 and 30. Clarifying the acceptable bounds of religious property governance in India may depend on judicial review, prospective constitutional challenges, or upcoming legislative changes.
FAQS
The Waqf Amendment Act of 2025: What is it?
The law is aimed at improving the accountability of Waqf Boards, requiring the digitization of documents, fortifying dispute resolution procedures, and altering the governance of Waqf properties.
Do Hindus’ sacred properties have comparable legal protections?
Temple trusts and foundations do exist, but their legal structures differ from one state to the next, and detractors claim they don’t have the same unified statutory rights as Waqf properties.
Are all members of religious minorities covered by the Act?
The Waqf Act does not apply to properties owned by other religious minority; rather, it mainly regulates Muslim charitable and religious endowments.
Is Article 14 (Equality before the Law) violated by the Act?
Supporters claim it encourages unfair treatment and may need judicial review, while the government argues it is a reasonable classification under affirmative action principles.
Can Hindus legitimately contest this Act?
Any citizen may contest the legality of a statute under Articles 32 or 226; the courts’ consideration of such a challenge is contingent upon a clear and present violation of constitutional rights.
