Waqf amendment bill clears Rajya Sabha amid sharp divides, set to become law

The Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, with 128 members voting in favour and 95 against, marking the culmination of a fierce and polarising political showdown. The legislation, which seeks to overhaul significant aspects of the management of Waqf properties across India, had already cleared the Lok Sabha the previous day with a vote of 288 to 232. Though its passage through both Houses appeared swift, the bill has exposed deep ideological and legal rifts within India’s political establishment.

The legislation amends the Waqf Act of 1995, a statute originally enacted to ensure the protection and proper administration of endowments made for religious, educational or charitable purposes under Islamic law. With the amendment, the Centre now aims to usher in structural changes that it argues will root out corruption and increase transparency. Yet, the Opposition contends these moves interfere with minority rights and the autonomy of Muslim institutions.

What are the key changes proposed by the Waqf Amendment Bill?

The amendments introduced in the Waqf Bill primarily revolve around the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, the requirement for proof of Islamic practice by donors, and new mechanisms for resolving disputes over property ownership. One of the most contentious provisions mandates the appointment of two non-Muslim individuals to both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Government ministers have argued that this change aims to improve governance and transparency in the management of Waqf assets, which often include highly valuable urban and rural properties.

Another major alteration is the requirement that any person wishing to donate property to Waqf must have practiced Islam for at least five years. This clause, according to the bill’s proponents, is intended to ensure authenticity in religious endowments. Critics, however, view it as arbitrary and potentially discriminatory, especially toward converts or those whose practice of Islam may not conform to state-defined benchmarks.

Additionally, under the revised framework, decisions regarding whether a piece of government land can be considered Waqf property will no longer lie solely with Waqf tribunals. Instead, district collectors—acting as senior administrative officials—will be empowered to investigate such claims and make final determinations. If a dispute arises, the collector’s verdict will hold greater authority than existing mechanisms, sparking criticism that this effectively bypasses judicial oversight and centralises power in the hands of the executive.

How did the debate unfold in the Rajya Sabha and what positions did key political figures take?

The Rajya Sabha witnessed extended and often acrimonious discussions before the bill was passed. Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju opened the debate by reiterating that the bill was not about religion, but about property management. He dismissed allegations that the government was targeting Muslim institutions, stressing that Waqf Boards would remain exclusive to Muslim beneficiaries. Rijiju stated that requiring proof of ownership for any claim over Waqf status was a corrective step, as earlier provisions allowed properties to be designated as Waqf without sufficient documentation, often leading to misuse.

Union Minister Amit Shah reinforced this argument by citing examples of properties—ranging from sites in Delhi’s Lutyens’ zone to heritage temples in Tamil Nadu—that had allegedly been wrongfully claimed as Waqf properties. Shah asserted that the Congress-led amendments to the Waqf Act in 2013 did not allow for civil suits in such cases, leaving only limited recourse under writ jurisdiction.

Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain challenged these claims, arguing that many of the 123 properties referenced were legitimate religious sites, including masjids, dargahs, and graveyards. He questioned the government’s interpretation of legal provisions and pointed to the ongoing litigation in various High Courts and the Supreme Court as evidence that legal avenues were, in fact, available.

Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of the Opposition, adopted a more cautionary tone, stating that the government was sowing the seeds of discord by pushing through a bill that lacked broad consensus. He appealed to the Home Minister to consider revisions, remarking that even a majority vote does not always imply moral correctness. Drawing comparisons with other religious institutions like the Tirupati Devasthanam and the Ram Temple Trust, Kharge questioned why similar rules regarding cross-religious appointments were not applied elsewhere.

AIMIM leader Imtiaz Jaleel echoed this sentiment, asking whether non-Muslims would be included in the management of prominent Hindu or Sikh religious trusts. He contended that such provisions eroded community-specific governance and set a troubling precedent.

What role did regional parties and conscience votes play in shaping the bill’s outcome?

One of the most intriguing developments during the Rajya Sabha vote was the stance taken by the Biju Janata Dal (BJD). Initially seen as an opponent of the bill, the party took a neutral line hours before voting by permitting its seven Rajya Sabha MPs to exercise a “conscience vote.” Senior BJD leader Sasmit Patra posted on social media platform X that the decision reflected the party’s sensitivity to diverse sentiments within minority communities.

This move had significant implications. It not only helped the government reach the 128-vote majority but also underscored the internal divisions within opposition ranks. The absence of a firm whip from the BJD diluted the strength of collective resistance to the bill and allowed the ruling alliance to project bipartisan support, even if some of it was indirect.

How does the Waqf Amendment Bill fit into the broader historical context of Waqf property regulation?

Waqf properties have historically played a critical role in funding educational, religious, and charitable institutions within the Muslim community. The concept of Waqf—an endowment made by a Muslim to a religious, educational, or charitable cause—has deep roots in Islamic jurisprudence. In India, the British colonial administration began regulating Waqf assets in the 19th century to curb mismanagement and ensure public utility.

The 1995 Waqf Act was seen as a modern legislative framework designed to standardise Waqf administration across states. It created the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards with the objective of maintaining records, auditing accounts, and resolving disputes. The law was further amended in 2013 under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to establish Waqf Tribunals for faster adjudication and to strengthen the institutional framework.

However, concerns about the misuse of Waqf properties, poor record-keeping, and the encroachment of public land under the guise of religious endowments have persisted. The current amendment seeks to address these gaps, although critics argue that it goes too far in subordinating religious autonomy to executive oversight.

What lies ahead for the Waqf Bill and its potential impact on minority governance?

With both houses of Parliament having passed the bill, it now awaits the President’s assent before becoming law. Once enacted, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill will significantly shift the power dynamics in religious property governance, transferring much of the discretion away from religious bodies and tribunals to administrative officials.

For proponents of property law reform, the legislation is a decisive step toward curbing corruption and strengthening accountability. For opponents, it signals a dangerous precedent of encroachment on minority rights and religious freedom. The actual impact of the Waqf Amendment Bill will ultimately hinge on how it is implemented on the ground—particularly how state administrations interpret the new mandates and how the judiciary responds to the likely surge in legal challenges.

The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, thus represents more than just a procedural update to an old statute. It raises fundamental questions about the balance between transparency and autonomy, about who gets to control community assets, and how far the state should go in regulating faith-linked institutions.