THE WAQF (AMENDMENT BILL),  2025


Author: Rachana K, KLE Law College, Bengaluru

Headline: Waqf Amendment 2025: A Constitutional Tug of War Between Religion and Property Rights.


To the Point

The Waqf Amendment Act of 2025 has ignited legal and political discourse across India by attempting to redefine the administration and scope of maintenance of waqf properties. This article analyses whether the amendment should be interpreted through the lens of religious freedom under Article 25 and 26, or as  primarily  a property law issue falling under the scope of Article 300A of the Constitution. A lot of Media houses have been declaring it as religious issue, where it is strictly restricted to the matters of property.

Exaggerating the matter more than required. The core debate lies in the dual identity of waqf as both a religious and proprietary institution, raising crucial constitutional questions about the boundaries of legislative intervention in religious endowments. In addition to centralizing management, the 2025 amendment gives State authorities more discretion in deciding the classification and use of waqf assets. Questions about whether such centralization violates the religious freedom protected by Part III of the Constitution have been raised by this. Or is the change a legitimate regulatory step to stop underuse, corruption, and misuse of large land resources?


Furthermore, it is impossible to ignore the political aspect. Religious leaders and minority groups have charged that the government is undermining communal autonomy under the pretense of administrative efficiency by using the amendment as a backdoor to seize Muslim charitable assets.  This article aims to delve deeper into these competing narratives by examining the legal text of the amendment, relevant constitutional provisions, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and policy implications. It seeks to answer whether the Waqf Amendment 2025 is a legitimate property law reform or a disguised curtailment of religious freedom.


Use of Legal Jargon: The amendment introduces modifications to the statutory framework under the Waqf Act, 1995. It redefines the role of “mutawalli” (custodian), which expands the powers of the Waqf Boards, and altering dispute resolution mechanisms and justice mechanisms. The key legal question is whether these statutory changes encroach upon religious autonomy protected under Part III of the Constitution or whether they are valid exercises of the State’s power to regulate secular aspects of property management under the doctrine of “eminent domain” and “public interest”, undertaken by Ministry of Minority affairs.

The Proof: This principle was judicially innovated and not textually embedded in the Constitution. It evolved through landmark jurisprudence and now acts as a judicially enforceable limitation  on constitutional amendments, particularly against arbitrary legislative encroachment. The main provision of the Waqf Amendment 2025 permits Waqf Boards to categorize waqf properties and makes it easier for the State to acquire underutilized waqf property for public welfare and infrastructure projects, such building schools, hospitals, and roads. This provision gives the government the authority to seize land that is not being actively used for the religious or philanthropic purposes for which it was originally granted and designate it as “underutilized” or “inefficiently managed.”


Opponents contend that this clause compromises the charitable intent and religious sanctity for which waqf property was initially allocated, frequently through permanent and irrevocable endowments. According to Islamic law, a waqf is a spiritual commitment as well as a formal organization. Any use of it that deviates from the intended purpose may be considered desecration of religion. Since Articles 25 and 26 protect religious freedom and the authority to run religious organizations, opponents see the modification as a violation of those rights.
Furthermore, this categorization authority might be abused to single out particular communities or religious communities, which would essentially be indirect discrimination. Criteria for identifying underutilized property could become arbitrary in the absence of defined procedural controls, potentially resulting in abuse of authority.

Furthermore, supporters contend that corruption, nepotism, and illegal encroachments have plagued the waqf system for decades. Many waqf properties are encroached upon or left derelict, defeating the purpose of public good envisioned in their creation. By reclassifying land for productive uses such as schools or hospitals, the State claims to align religious philanthropy with present-day developmental needs. Under Article 300A, no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law, and the amendment claims to provide a legal basis for such reallocation with safeguards like compensation and the right to appeal.


Moreover, this reclassification power could be misused to target certain communities or religious groups, effectively amounting to indirect discrimination. Without clear procedural safeguards, criteria for identifying underutilized property could become arbitrary, leading to potential abuse of power. This could also infringe the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as beneficiaries of waqf trusts have long assumed continued religious or charitable use of these lands.


The proof, therefore, lies in the constitutional balancing act: the amendment does not explicitly strip religious rights but provides for administrative supervision of property deemed inactive or underused. The question before the judiciary is whether such intervention crosses the line into religious interference or remains a valid regulatory mechanism for better governance.

Abstract: The Waqf Amendment Act of 2025 represents a significant shift in the legal architecture surrounding the governance of waqf properties in India. At its core, the amendment aims to modernize and regulate the administration of waqf assets, purportedly to enhance transparency, efficiency, and public utility. However, it has sparked deep constitutional, religious, and political debates across the country.


Waqf, by definition, is a permanent, irrevocable religious endowment made under Islamic law for charitable or religious purposes. As such, it exists at the intersection of religious freedom and property regulation—both constitutionally protected yet distinct domains. The central tension arises from whether the State’s growing role in managing waqf properties should be seen as a legitimate exercise of administrative control or an encroachment on the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.


The 2025 amendment seeks to centralize waqf records, reclassify idle or mismanaged waqf properties for public use, and empower Waqf Boards with quasi-executive authority to streamline decision-making. While these reforms ostensibly target corruption, encroachments, and systemic inefficiencies, they also raise critical concerns under Article 300A the constitutional right to property and under the broader jurisprudence of religious autonomy.


This article critically evaluates whether the Waqf Amendment 2025 is a reformative administrative tool or a vehicle for overreach into religious institutions. By dissecting legislative intent, statutory provisions, and judicial pronouncements, the analysis focuses on the constitutional validity of the amendment, its alignment with Islamic legal principles, and its impact on minority rights and religious freedom. It highlights the urgent need for a nuanced balance between public interest governance and protection of religious identity, arguing that any such law must withstand the tests of proportionality, due process, and non-discrimination.


Case Laws


Mohd. Ismail Ariff v. Ahmad Moolla Dawood (1916)
This case laid down the foundational principle that a waqf, once validly created, is irrevocable and inalienable. The court recognized waqf as a perpetual dedication of property to God, making it distinct from ordinary private property. This case reinforces the idea that waqf has a religious core and any encroachment upon it could be viewed as a violation of religious tenets.


M.P. Wakf Board v. Jabalpur Development Authority (2011)
The Court held that waqf properties are not exempt from public welfare regulations, especially when balanced with urban development and planning needs. However, it emphasized that such actions must be taken in accordance with law, fair procedure, and due compensation. This case provides conditional support to the 2025 Amendment, suggesting that while State regulation is permissible, it must not be arbitrary or disproportionate. The principle of “just, fair and reasonable” procedure applies.
Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968)
The Court clarified that not all institutions founded by religious communities are protected under Article 26 unless they are managed by religious denominations. Moreover, administrative and secular activities can be regulated by the State, even if linked to religious institutions. This decision helps justify the amendment’s administrative reforms like digital audits and Board oversight, provided the religious purposes of waqf are not interfered with directly.


M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar (1958)
The Court introduced the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine, ruling that only those religious activities that are essential to a religion enjoy full constitutional protection. The practice of cow slaughter was held not essential to Islam and could be regulated.  If managing waqf land is interpreted as a secular activity, the State may have stronger grounds to regulate it. However, the religious dedication underlying waqf property could still qualify as essential in certain cases, making blanket regulation problematic.
State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1995)
This case reiterated that religious rights under Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, morality, and health. It held that non-essential religious practices or associated secular activities can be regulated in public interest.This supports the argument that centralized waqf management can be justified under constitutional limits, as long as essential religious functions are not hindered.


Conclusion


At the heart of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 lies a question that touches both constitutional ideals and deeply held community sentiments: Is this about faith, or is it about land? After examining the amendment’s legal contours, constitutional implications, and judicial interpretations, one must conclude that the amendment is not a direct assault on religious freedom, but rather a step toward better governance of property held in public trust.

Waqf, while originating from religious devotion, functions today as a vast network of properties many of which are underutilised, encroached upon, or mired in mismanagement. These lands are not just religious relics; they are real, tangible spaces in urban and rural India that, if managed wisely, can serve the very communities they were intended to benefit. The amendment seeks to unlock that potential through digitisation, stronger oversight, and legal clarity.
It is understandable that any change to religious endowments evokes concern. For centuries, waqf has been a symbol of service, charity, and continuity within the Muslim community. However, modern governance must also address the real-world challenges of land use, infrastructure development, and public welfare—challenges that extend beyond religious boundaries. The amendment does not dismantle the spiritual or charitable essence of waqf.
It respects the sacred purpose behind these properties while asserting that their management is a matter of public concern, and therefore, a legitimate subject of regulation under property law. So long as due process is followed and rights to compensation and fair hearing are upheld under Article 300A, the changes do not amount to a violation of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.

In sum, the Waqf Amendment Act of 2025 is not about undermining religion; it is about making sure that religiously endowed properties are managed with responsibility, transparency, and in alignment with the public interest. In that light, this is primarily a property-related issue, shaped by legal principles and the need for reform, rather than a conflict with religious practice.

FAQS


Q1: Is the Waqf Amendment 2025 an attack on religious freedom?
A: This is a genuine concern for many, but legally speaking, the answer is no. The amendment doesn’t touch upon prayers, rituals, or religious beliefs. Instead, it focuses on how waqf lands are managed and used which courts have long seen as a secular matter open to regulation. The religious purpose of waqf stays protected.

Q2: Can the government now take waqf land for other projects?
A: Yes, under certain conditions. If a waqf property is lying unused or mismanaged, the Waqf Board can allow its use for public infrastructure like schools, hospitals, or roads. But this can only happen if there’s a clear public purpose, and affected parties are given compensation and fair hearing, as per the law.

Q3: Does this amendment break any part of the Constitution?
A: Not likely. The Constitution allows the State to regulate secular activities of religious bodies. The amendment doesn’t dismantle waqf, it just aims to bring better oversight and accountability. If challenged in court, judges will weigh both religious rights and the broader public interest.

Q4: What happens to the role of the mutawalli now?
A: The mutawalli will still manage day-to-day affairs, but with more checks and balances. The goal isn’t to sideline them, but to make sure their work is transparent, efficient, and free from corruption, benefiting the community in the long run.

Q5: Will this law apply the same way in all states?
A: Not necessarily. Waqf falls under a list that both the Centre and States can legislate on, so states can choose to adopt the amendment as-is, tweak it, or even opt out. That means implementation may look a little different across India.

Q6: Does the amendment respect international religious freedom laws?
A: Yes. International law, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), allows governments to manage religious institutions if it’s in the public interest as long as they don’t discriminate or violate core religious freedoms. This amendment follows that spirit.

Q7: Are there any protections for the religious community?
A: Absolutely. The amendment includes legal safeguards like proper procedures, compensation, the right to appeal, and audits. These ensure that no religious group is unfairly treated or stripped of their rights without due process.

Q8: Could this impact other religious institutions too?
A: Yes, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If the amendment leads to more transparency and better management of waqf, it could encourage similar reforms in temples, churches, or gurudwaras—especially where there are concerns about land use or mismanagement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *