Author: R. Tejasree, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University
To the Point
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 officially titled the UMEED Act (Unified Management Empowerment Efficiency and Development) was enacted in April 2025 after being approved by Parliament and receiving Presidential assent. Designed to reform the Waqf Act of 1995, the new law aims to improve transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the administration of waqf properties. Initially introduced in 2024, the bill underwent scrutiny by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and was shaped further through public consultations.
A Waqf refers to the dedication of personal property by Muslims for religious, charitable, or private use, with the belief that ownership is transferred to God. It can be created through a written deed, an oral declaration, or when a property has been consistently used for religious or charitable purposes over time. Once a property is designated as Waqf, its status becomes permanent and cannot be modified or revoked.
The UMEED Act of 2025 marks a major step in reforming waqf administration to uphold the values of transparency, justice, and secular constitutional principles. Although the Act seeks to rectify persistent irregularities, its effectiveness will depend on maintaining a balance between community self-governance and state supervision, while ensuring that the reforms are guided by both legal requirements and a commitment to inclusive dialogue and ethical administration.
Abstract
Its primary objective is to modernize and streamline the management of waqf assets, with the stated goals of enhancing transparency, operational efficiency, and maximizing public benefit. However, the Act has ignited widespread constitutional, religious, and political debates across the nation.
Waqf, in essence, refers to a permanent and irrevocable religious endowment under Islamic law, created for charitable or religious purposes. It operates at the sensitive intersection of constitutionally protected religious freedom and property regulation. The key issue at hand is whether the State’s increasing involvement in waqf administration constitutes a legitimate form of governance or infringes upon the religious freedoms enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
The 2025 amendment introduces measures such as centralizing waqf property records, reassigning underutilized or mismanaged waqf assets for public purposes, and granting quasi-executive powers to Waqf Boards to expedite decision-making. While these changes are positioned as efforts to combat corruption, unauthorized occupation, and inefficiency, they also prompt serious concerns related to Article 300A, which guarantees the constitutional right to property, as well as broader issues surrounding religious self-governance.
This article offers a critical analysis of whether the 2025 Amendment functions as a genuine administrative reform or a potential intrusion into religious institutions. By examining the legislative intent, key provisions, and relevant judicial interpretations, the discussion centres on the constitutional soundness of the Act, its consistency with Islamic jurisprudence, and its implications for minority rights and religious liberty. Ultimately, the article underscores the necessity for a carefully calibrated approach that upholds public interest without compromising religious identity, emphasizing that such legislation must meet the constitutional standards of proportionality, due process, and equality.
Use of Legal Jargon
It revises the definition and responsibilities of the “mutawalli” (custodian), broadens the authority of Waqf Boards, and modifies the systems for dispute resolution and justice delivery. The amendment brings significant changes to the legal structure established under the Waqf Act of 1995. property, along with wider concerns related to religious autonomy and self-management. The central legal issue revolves around whether these changes infringe upon the religious autonomy guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, or if they constitute a legitimate exercise of the State’s authority to oversee the secular dimensions of property management justified under the principles of “eminent domain” and “public interest” as executed by the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
The Proof
This principle, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, emerged through landmark judicial interpretations and has since become a key limitation on constitutional amendments, particularly to prevent arbitrary legislative overreach. A central feature of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, empowers Waqf Boards to classify waqf properties and facilitates State acquisition of those deemed underutilized for public welfare initiatives such as constructing schools, hospitals, and roads. This provision grants the government authority to reclaim waqf land not actively serving its original religious or charitable purpose by labelling it as “underutilized” or “inefficiently managed.”
Critics argue that this undermines the original religious and charitable intent behind waqf endowments, which are traditionally considered permanent and irrevocable spiritual commitments under Islamic law. They assert that diverting such properties from their intended purpose could be seen as desecration, violating the sanctity of waqf. Given that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect religious freedom and the autonomy of religious institutions, opponents view the amendment as a potential infringement of these rights.
There is also concern that the power to categorize waqf properties might be misused to disproportionately target specific communities, amounting to indirect discrimination. In the absence of clearly defined procedural safeguards, the criteria for determining “underutilization” could become subjective and arbitrary, increasing the risk of misuse of authority. Additionally, such reclassification may breach the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as beneficiaries of waqf trusts may have long relied on their continued religious or charitable use.
On the other hand, supporters of the amendment point to the longstanding issues of corruption, mismanagement, and illegal encroachments within the waqf system. They argue that many waqf properties lie in neglect or disrepair, falling short of serving the public interest for which they were originally endowed. By reallocating such lands for productive and socially beneficial purposes, the State claims to align the original philanthropic goals with contemporary development needs. The amendment, citing Article 300A, upholds that no person can be dispossessed of their property without lawful authority, and provides safeguards including compensation and the right to challenge the decision through an appeal.
Ultimately, the debate centers on constitutional balance. While the amendment does not directly revoke religious rights, it introduces administrative oversight of properties deemed inactive. The judiciary must now decide whether such measures constitute an unconstitutional intrusion into religious affairs or represent a legitimate effort at improving governance and public utility.
Case Laws
M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar (1958)
The Court introduced the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine, stating that only those religious activities considered essential to a religion are granted full constitutional protection. It held that cow slaughter was not essential to Islam and therefore could be regulated. Similarly, if the management of waqf land is viewed as a secular activity, the State may have stronger justification to regulate it. However, since waqf property is based on religious dedication, it may still be considered essential in certain instances, making broad regulation problematic.
State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri (1995)
The Court reiterated that the religious rights protected under Articles 25 and 26 are limited by concerns related to public order, morality, and health. It held that non-essential religious practices or related secular activities may be regulated in the public interest. This reinforces the view that centralized management of waqf can be constitutionally valid, provided that essential religious functions remain unaffected.
M.P. Wakf Board v. Jabalpur Development Authority (2011)
The Court held that waqf properties can be subject to public welfare regulations, especially when balanced against the needs of urban planning and development. However, it stressed that such measures must follow legal procedures, ensure fairness, and provide due compensation. This judgment conditionally supports the 2025 Amendment, indicating that while State regulation is allowed, it must not be arbitrary or excessive. The requirement of a “just, fair and reasonable” procedure remains applicable.
Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968)
The Court held that institutions established by religious communities do not automatically receive protection under Article 26 unless they are under the control of a religious denomination. It further stated that administrative and secular functions can be regulated by the State, even if connected to religious bodies. This ruling supports the amendment’s administrative provisions such as digital audits and oversight by Boards, as long as the religious objectives of waqf are not directly affected.
Conclusion
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 signifies a significant step forward in updating the administration and oversight of waqf properties, with the goal of making waqf governance more efficient in India. Waqf, a fundamental element of Islamic charitable practices, serves an important role in supporting religious and social welfare activities. The Bill brings significant changes, such as implementing centralized digital records of waqf properties, increasing government monitoring, and enforcing more rigorous legal provisions to prevent misuse. Since waqf regulations differ from country to country, examining international practices offers valuable perspectives on how various nations manage waqf by harmonizing religious values with contemporary legal systems.
To reduce lengthy legal battles, the amendment enforces the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, to waqf properties, effective from the date the new provisions come into force.
It is noteworthy that many Muslim-majority nations have not yet enacted a formal Waqf Act. In most of these nations, waqf properties are governed through Ordinances or Regulations, with the exception of Pakistan, where both Ordinances (for instance, the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, along with the Islamabad Capital Territory Waqf Properties Act, 2020, and the Sindh Waqf Properties Act, 2020, are presently in operation.
In summary, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, marks a forward-looking development in India’s waqf governance, emphasizing greater transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness. By incorporating international perspectives, the goal is to establish an efficient management system that ensures waqf properties serve their designated social and religious objectives while supporting long-term sustainability. Through measures such as inclusive representation, digitalization, effective dispute resolution, and safeguarding women’s inheritance rights, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, sets a notable example for waqf administration on a global scale.
FAQS
1. Does the Waqf Amendment 2025 infringe upon religious freedom?
While this concern is understandable, from a legal standpoint, the answer is no. The amendment does not interfere with prayers, rituals, or religious faith. Its focus is solely on the administration and utilization of waqf land, which courts have consistently treated as a secular domain subject to regulation. The religious intent of waqf remains safeguarded.
2. Does the amendment violate the Constitution?
Unlikely. The Constitution permits regulation of secular aspects of religious institutions. The amendment does not abolish waqf but introduces stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms. If brought before the judiciary, the courts would evaluate it in terms of religious rights and the larger public interest.
3. What changes for the mutawalli?
The mutawalli will continue managing routine affairs but under enhanced oversight. The aim is not to marginalize them, but to ensure transparency, effectiveness, and accountability in their role ultimately benefiting the community.
4. Are there safeguards for the religious community?
Yes. The amendment includes safeguards such as legal procedures, fair compensation, audit systems, and the right to appeal ensuring that religious groups are not deprived of their rights without due process.
5. Could this reform affect other religious institutions?
Possibly, and that may be beneficial. If the waqf reforms lead to more transparency and better governance, similar reforms could be extended to temples, churches, and gurudwaras, particularly where land management issues exist.
