Massive Waqf overhaul clears Lok Sabha: What the new UMEED Bill means for Muslim property rights

In a significant legislative milestone, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, after nearly 12 hours of intense debate. The vote—288 in favour and 232 against—reflected a deep political divide over the future of Waqf property governance in India. Introduced by Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, the bill proposes a comprehensive reform of the country’s Waqf system, which manages endowments donated for religious, educational, and charitable purposes within Muslim communities.

Rechristened as the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill, the legislation promises to digitize and streamline Waqf property management, aiming to curb long-standing issues such as corruption, poor record-keeping, and protracted legal disputes. However, the bill has also triggered fierce criticism from opposition leaders and community representatives who warn that the changes could dilute minority control over religious institutions.

What does the UMEED Bill change about Waqf property management in India?

At the heart of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill is a push toward a technology-first approach. The bill proposes that all Waqf property-related processes—including registration, auditing, and litigation—be automated through digital tools. This initiative is expected to bring greater transparency, reduce manual errors, and eliminate redundant bureaucratic procedures that often hamper timely decision-making in Waqf Boards.

Minister Rijiju defended the renaming of the bill as symbolic of a larger transformation. The acronym “UMEED” (meaning “hope” in Hindi) was presented as a signal of the government’s intent to modernize Waqf operations while empowering institutions that serve vital social and religious functions within Muslim communities.

A key component of the amendment is the proposed development of a centralised digital portal. This platform would act as a unified interface for stakeholders to monitor, audit, and regulate Waqf assets. With many Waqf properties lacking proper documentation or embroiled in land disputes, the digitisation effort is framed as a corrective measure that aligns with broader government efforts to bring property records under digital governance.

Why has the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf administration sparked controversy?

A particularly contentious provision in the new bill allows non-Muslim individuals to participate in the administrative aspects of Waqf property management. While the bill does not permit non-Muslims to partake in religious activities, it opens the door for their inclusion in boards and tribunals that oversee governance.

According to the new amendments, the Central Waqf Council could include up to four non-Muslim members, including at least two women. The rationale, according to the government, is to broaden the perspective within decision-making bodies and ensure that professional expertise—not just religious affiliation—guides property and dispute management.

Opposition leaders and critics from minority communities, however, argue that this could infringe upon the autonomy of Muslim religious institutions. They contend that Waqf properties, being inherently tied to religious endowments, should be governed solely by those who understand the cultural and spiritual context of such assets.

How does this reform fit into India’s historical handling of Waqf assets?

The management of Waqf properties in India has long been fraught with inefficiencies and allegations of misuse. Waqf, derived from Islamic law, refers to a charitable endowment typically dedicated to religious or community purposes. India has one of the largest repositories of Waqf properties globally, spanning millions of acres and estimated to be worth billions of dollars. These assets are traditionally intended to support mosques, madrassas, orphanages, and other social welfare activities.

The Waqf Act of 1995 had established the framework for State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, yet enforcement has been uneven. Many properties lie unregistered, illegally occupied, or poorly maintained due to administrative lapses. The backlog of property disputes in Waqf Tribunals further hampers effective utilisation of these assets.

In this context, the UMEED Bill is presented as an opportunity to correct structural flaws by introducing modern record-keeping, digital surveillance, and standardised procedures. The government argues that the bill is not about interfering with religion, but rather about enabling a more efficient system to fulfill the intended purpose of Waqf assets.

What are the government’s main justifications for this legislative overhaul?

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, in introducing the bill, stressed the need for urgent reform to tackle what he described as widespread corruption, encroachments, and mismanagement within Waqf institutions. According to Rijiju, the introduction of digital platforms and accountability mechanisms would go a long way in ensuring that Waqf properties are used for the intended religious and charitable functions.

Home Minister Amit Shah also weighed in during the parliamentary debate, asserting that the opposition was engaged in fear-mongering and vote-bank politics. He clarified that the UMEED Bill does not interfere with religious practices, but only seeks to improve the administrative efficiency and transparency of institutions responsible for overseeing vast religious endowments.

Shah further claimed that the real beneficiaries of the bill would be ordinary members of the Muslim community, especially those relying on the social services provided by Waqf institutions.

How have opposition parties and minority groups responded to the bill?

Despite the government’s assurances, opposition lawmakers and several Muslim organisations have strongly criticised the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. They argue that it violates constitutional protections for religious minorities and risks the politicisation of Waqf Boards.

Several opposition MPs expressed concern that the bill grants the government excessive powers to determine ownership of Waqf properties, particularly in cases where land disputes are involved. Critics fear that this could lead to the forced takeover or repurposing of historic religious sites, particularly in urban areas where real estate values are high.

Others have pointed out the lack of consultation with community stakeholders prior to the drafting of the bill. They argue that such sweeping changes to a centuries-old institution require broader consensus and greater sensitivity to cultural norms and historical practices.

What could be the broader impact of the Waqf Amendment Bill on property rights and community development?

If implemented effectively, the UMEED Bill has the potential to modernise the administration of one of India’s largest public endowment systems. With digitisation and improved compliance, Waqf Boards could generate higher revenues and channel these funds into community welfare programs such as education, healthcare, and housing.

However, the success of these reforms hinges on execution. Transparency, inclusivity, and responsiveness to community concerns will be essential in winning the trust of those who fear that the bill could be used to centralise control or dilute religious autonomy.

The political sensitivity surrounding Waqf properties means that even well-intentioned reforms must be handled with care. As the bill moves to the Rajya Sabha, its fate—and that of the proposed governance changes—will likely shape the debate over the role of religion in public administration for years to come.