The Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the early hours of April 4, 2025, at 2:22 AM, following a marathon 14-hour debate. The bill received 128 votes in favour and 95 votes against, with no abstentions. The Lok Sabha had passed the bill on April 3, and now it awaits the President's assent to become law.

Read also: Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025: Key Changes and Major Debates in Lok Sabha

What is Waqf?

Waqf refers to a permanent dedication of property by a person for purposes recognised under Muslim law as pious, religious, or charitable.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was initially introduced on August 8, 2024, in the Lok Sabha. It proposed nearly 40 amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995 (amended in 2013). These were aimed at:

• Reducing litigation
• Modernising administration
• Ensuring efficient use and management of waqf properties

Due to sharp opposition, the bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which accepted the bill with several changes.

Read also: Waqf Amendment Bill 2025: Reforms and Controversies Surrounding Its Implementation

Government’s Stand

“The bill aims to add transparency, accountability, and efficiency in waqf property management.” – Kiren Rijiju

• Rijiju referred to the Kerala High Court judgment in Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs Union of India And Ors, stating:

“The Waqf Board is a statutory body and not a representative body of Muslims.”

• He also cited the Allahabad HC judgment in Hazif Mohd Zafar Ahmd v. UP Central Sunni Board of Waqf, saying:

“The role of Muttawali is secular and not a religious practice.”

• Amit Shah, Home Minister, clarified:

“There will be no interference in Muslim religious affairs. The waqf by user clause will only apply prospectively.”

Read also: NCLAT Upholds CCI's Ruling Against Google, Reduces Penalty to Rs 216 Crore

Statements by JP Nadda (Leader of the House)

• Highlighted that between 1913 and 2013, waqf properties totaled 18 lakh hectares, but from 2013 to 2025, another 21 lakh hectares were added.

“The 2013 amendment gave extraordinary powers to the Waqf Board and violated Article 21 of the Constitution.” – JP Nadda

• He raised issues with:
  • Section 40: Allowed Waqf Board to self-declare waqf properties
  • Section 54: Allowed encroachment removal without court
  • Sections 5 and 6: Barred civil courts from legal actions

Opposition's Response

• Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of Opposition, questioned the government’s intent by pointing out:
  • Cancellation of five Muslim welfare schemes
  • Decreasing Minority Affairs Ministry budget
  • Shifting authority from Survey Commissioner to State-nominated officers
• Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised strong constitutional concerns:

“The bill violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.”

• He cited:
  • Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay

“Taking away administrative rights from religious denominations violates Article 26.”

• Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs State of Rajasthan

“Administration must not be extinguished under the guise of regulation.”

Read also: Delhi High Court: Restaurants Cannot Force Customers to Pay Service Charge

Sanjay Singh (AAP) Pointed Out:

“In 2020, the Government itself declared before the Supreme Court that 99% of waqf properties have been digitised.”

1. Proof of practising Islam for 5 years

• Bill provision: Only those practising Islam for at least 5 years can declare waqf
• JPC recommendation: Change to “any person demonstrating practising Islam for 5 years”
• Government response: No specific clarification

2. Waqf by User

• Bill omitted the clause
• JPC recommendation: Apply omission prospectively only
• Government response: Rijiju confirmed prospective nature

3. Wrongful Waqf Claim on Government Property

• Bill introduced Section 3C: Govt property cannot be deemed waqf
• JPC suggestion: Use the term ‘designated officer’ instead of Collector
• Government response: Accepted and changed provision accordingly

4. Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members

• Proposal: Add two non-Muslims to Central Waqf Council and State Boards
• JPC support: For broader representation and inclusivity
• Opposition view: Violates religious autonomy

“Out of 23 members in the Central Waqf Council, 13 would be non-Muslim, changing the body’s character.” – Dr John Brittas

• Brittas cited the Supreme Court ruling on Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple:

“Govt nominee must be Hindu; else a junior Hindu officer must be chosen.”

5. Waqf Tribunal Reforms

• Old Law: Tribunal decision was final
• Amendment: Decisions can be appealed to High Court within 2 years
• JPC recommendation:
  • Make Tribunal a three-member body with a member trained in Muslim law
  • Remove fixed timeline for settlement
• Government response: Accepted all suggestions

Name Change Controversy

Yerram Vankata Subba Reddy flagged the name change from “Waqf Bill” to:

“Unified Waqf Management Empowerment Efficiency And Development”

• He argued it strips the word ‘waqf’ of its religious and historical meaning

• Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (1997)
• Shri Jagannath Temple Act (1955)
• Tamil Nadu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (1959)
• Sikh Gurdwaras Act (1925)

“No non-Hindu or non-Sikh member is appointed in such religious boards.” – Singhvi