The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, recently passed in the Lok Sabha, introduces several significant changes aimed at improving waqf property management, reducing litigation, and ensuring equitable distribution of waqf-generated revenue. The amendments have sparked considerable debate, with both support and opposition highlighting critical aspects of the changes. Below is a comparative analysis of the major amendments in the 2025 Act against the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013).
Category |
Waqf Act, 1995 |
Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024 |
---|---|---|
Name of the Act |
The Waqf Act, 1995 |
Renamed Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 1995 |
Formation of Waqf |
Allowed by declaration, user, or endowment (Waqf-alal-aulad) |
Removes Waqf by user; only declaration or endowment allowed. Donors must be practicing Muslims for 5+ years. Cannot deny female inheritance. |
Government Property as Waqf |
No clear provision |
Government properties identified as Waqf cease to be Waqf. Disputes resolved by the Collector, who reports to the state. |
Power to Determine Waqf |
Waqf Board had authority |
Provision removed. |
Survey of Waqf |
Conducted by Survey Commissioners and Additional Commissioners |
Collectors empowered to conduct surveys as per state revenue laws. |
Central Waqf Council |
All members had to be Muslims, including two women |
Includes two non-Muslims; MPs, former judges, and eminent persons need not be Muslims. The following members must be Muslims: Representatives of Muslim organizations, Scholars in Islamic law, Chairpersons of Waqf Boards. Of the Muslim members, two members must be women. |
State Waqf Boards |
Up to two elected Muslim MPs/MLAs/Bar Council members; at least two women |
State government nominates members, including two non-Muslims, one each from Shia, Sunni, Backward-class Muslims, Bohra, and Agakhani. At least two Muslim women required. |
Tribunal Composition |
Led by a judge, included Additional District Magistrate & Muslim law expert |
Muslim law expert removed; includes District Court judge (chairman) and a joint secretary (state government). |
Appeal on Tribunal Orders |
High Court intervention only under special circumstances |
Appeals allowed to High Court within 90 days. |
Powers of Central Government |
State governments could audit Waqf accounts anytime |
Central Government empowered to make rules on Waqf registration, accounts, and audits (CAG/designated officer). |
Separate Waqf Boards for Sects |
Separate boards for Shia & Sunni (if Shia Waqf >15%) |
Also allows Bohra & Agakhani Waqf boards. |
Proof of Practicing Islam for Declaring Waqf
- 1995 Act: No explicit requirement for an individual to prove their religious practice before declaring waqf.
- 2025 Amendment: Requires that an individual must have practiced Islam for at least five years before declaring a waqf.
- JPC Recommendation: Recommended amending the provision to include "any person showing or demonstrating that he/she is practicing Islam for at least five years."
Waqf by User
- 1995 Act: Recognized the concept of waqf by user, allowing properties used for religious purposes over time to be declared waqf.
- 2025 Amendment: Removed the provision for waqf by user.
- JPC Recommendation: Recommended that the omission apply only prospectively and that disputed or government properties should not be subject to waqf by user claims.
- Government Response: Accepted the recommendation, clarifying that the amendment will not affect past waqf by user claims.
Claims of Waqf on Government Property
- 1995 Act: Did not explicitly address wrongful claims of waqf over government property.
- 2025 Amendment: Introduced a new Section 3C stating that any government property identified or declared as waqf before or after the amendment shall not be deemed as waqf.
- Decision Authority:
- 1995 Act: Disputes were settled through waqf tribunals and judicial processes.
- 2025 Amendment: Initially proposed that the Collector would decide such disputes.
- JPC Recommendation: Suggested replacing 'Collector' with 'designated officer' to be appointed by the State Government.
- Government Response: Accepted this recommendation and amended the provision accordingly.
Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members in Waqf Boards
- 1995 Act: Only allowed Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.
- 2025 Amendment: Proposed the inclusion of two non-Muslim members in these bodies.
- JPC Recommendation: Suggested that two non-Muslim members should be included but excluding ex-officio members.
- Government Response: Accepted the recommendation, arguing that it promotes diversity and transparency in waqf management.
Constitution and Authority of Waqf Tribunal
- 1995 Act: The Waqf Tribunal had the final authority on disputes regarding waqf properties and their classification (Shia/Sunni).
- 2025 Amendment: Allowed appeals against Tribunal decisions to the High Court within two years.
- JPC Recommendation:
- Supported the introduction of an appeal provision to the High Court.
- Recommended revising the Tribunal’s composition to include a member with expertise in Muslim law.
- Proposed making the Tribunal a three-member body instead of a two-member body.
- Suggested removing strict timelines for case resolution, as the existing law already mandates expedited proceedings.
- Government Response: Largely accepted these changes to improve efficiency and legal clarity.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aims to modernize waqf administration while ensuring transparency and legal certainty. However, opposition concerns regarding the exclusion of waqf by user, potential government interference in waqf property decisions, and the inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf boards continue to fuel debates. By incorporating several recommendations from the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the government has attempted to balance administrative efficiency with community concerns.
This amendment will likely impact the legal and religious landscape significantly, with potential challenges in implementation and judicial interpretation. The coming years will determine the effectiveness of these reforms in achieving their intended objectives.