Skip to main content

The Lok Sabha Passes the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025: A Historic Move Amidst Heated Debates


In a significant legislative development, the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 after an intense 12-hour-long debate that concluded in the early hours (2 AM) of April 3, Thursday. The Bill, introduced by Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, saw 288 Members of Parliament (MPs) voting in favor, while 232 MPs opposed it.

Key Highlights of the Debate

During the discussion, Rijiju emphasized that the Bill does not infringe on the religious rights of Muslims and is focused solely on the management of Waqf properties.

“If we had not come up with this legislation, even Parliament building would have been claimed as waqf,” he stated.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah further reassured the community that the amendments would not interfere with religious affairs or property dedicated by Muslims.

“I would like to tell Muslims in the country that not even one non-Muslim will come into your waqf,” he asserted.

BJP MP Tejasvi Surya described the Bill as a corrective measure to undo a “constitutional fraud” allegedly imposed by the Congress party.

Opposition's Strong Resistance

Opposition MPs fiercely criticized the Bill, calling it an attack on religious freedom. Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi from Assam termed it an “attack on the basic structure of the Constitution.”

Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee argued that the Bill directly violated Article 26 of the Constitution, which grants religious groups the right to manage their own affairs.

Congress MP KC Venugopal accused the government of trying to divide the country for political gain.

“The world is watching as you try to divide this country for political benefit,” he said.

Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) MP NK Premachandran from Kerala raised concerns over mandatory non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board.

"You have made non-Muslim members mandatory on waqf board. Will you say that for devaswom boards of temples?" he asked.

Independent MP from Jammu and Kashmir Abdul Rashid Sheikh lamented the outcome as a numbers game.

"We all know this Bill will be passed because they have the majority …I want to tell Muslims of this country that this is a numbers game for them and you are stuck in between,” he remarked.

AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi went to the extent of tearing a copy of the Bill, protesting against what he called a mockery of democracy.

“When you say waqf council and board are religion neutral, you can nominate your pawns. What kind of mockery of democracy is this?” he questioned.

Understanding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025

The Waqf Act, 1995, originally governed the administration of Waqf properties, providing powers to the Waqf Council, State Waqf Boards, and the Chief Executive Officer.

The 2025 amendment introduces several major changes:

  1. Renaming of the Act - The Bill renames the 1995 Act to “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act”, highlighting its broader administrative objectives.

  2. Restrictions on Waqf Declaration - Only a Muslim practicing Islam for at least five years can declare a Waqf, ensuring that the person also owns the property. The provision allowing Waqf by prolonged religious use has been removed.

  3. Protection of Inheritance Rights - The Bill prevents Waqf-alal-aulad from violating inheritance rights, particularly for women heirs.

  4. Changes in Waqf Board Powers - The Bill removes the power of Waqf Boards to independently determine whether a property is Waqf.

  5. Changes in Waqf Council Composition - The Central Waqf Council will now include two mandatory non-Muslim members, whereas previously, all members had to be Muslims. However, representatives of Muslim organizations and scholars of Islamic law will still be Muslims, with at least two Muslim women members.

  6. Central Oversight of Audits - While the 1995 Act allowed State Governments to audit Waqf accounts, the new Bill empowers the Central Government to conduct audits via the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

  7. Separate Waqf Boards for Minority Sects - The Bill allows separate Waqf Boards for Aghakhani and Bohra sects, in addition to the existing Sunni and Shia boards.

  8. Judicial Appeal Rights - Previously, decisions of the Waqf Tribunal were final and could not be challenged in courts. The Bill now allows High Courts to hear appeals within 90 days.

The Road Ahead

As the Bill moves forward, it is expected to be introduced in the Rajya Sabha for further discussion. Given the contentious nature of the amendments, legal challenges are likely, with possible intervention from the Supreme Court.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, remains one of the most debated pieces of legislation in recent times. While the government claims it will streamline Waqf property management, critics argue that it infringes on religious autonomy. The final outcome will shape not only Waqf governance but also broader debates on religious rights and state intervention in India.

Stay tuned with The Legal Catalyst for further updates on the fate of this Bill in the Rajya Sabha and its impact on religious and constitutional rights in India.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more