India’s New Waqf Regime: Is it Constitutional?

Overview

A crucial legal battle is currently unfolding in the Supreme Court of India, where a batch of petitions is challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. This Act introduces sweeping changes to the management and administration of Waqf properties in India, including new requirements for Waqf declarations and the composition of Waqf Boards. While the government asserts the amendments aim for transparency and efficiency, critics argue they represent an arbitrary and discriminatory overhauling of the institution, concentrating undue power in the executive and impinging on religious autonomy.

Key Points

• The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, mandates that new Waqf declarations require documentary proof or a formal declaration from a Muslim practicing Islam for at least five years.
• It introduces the appointment of two non-Muslim members to every State Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council, a significant departure from previous norms.
• Critics argue the Act disproportionately targets Muslim religious endowments, unlike those of other religions, and centralizes executive control, raising concerns about religious freedom and discrimination.

Analysis

The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, aims to bring reforms to the Waqf Act, 1995, which governs the administration of properties dedicated by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes. The stated objectives of the amendments are to enhance transparency, prevent encroachment, and improve the efficiency of Waqf property management. To achieve this, several key changes have been introduced.

Firstly, the Act now stipulates that new Waqf declarations must be substantiated by documentary proof or a formal declaration from an individual who has demonstrably practiced Islam for at least five years. This provision seeks to curb fraudulent or unsubstantiated Waqf claims, ensuring the legitimacy of such endowments. However, petitioners argue that this requirement is vague, potentially discriminatory, and could invalidate older Waqf properties established through ‘Waqf by user’ (recognition based on long-standing public religious use) where formal documentation might not exist.

Secondly, a highly contentious amendment is the inclusion of two non-Muslim members in every State Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council. Previously, these bodies were composed entirely of Muslim members, reflecting the religious nature of the endowments they managed. The government argues that these bodies perform secular administrative and financial functions, and the inclusion of non-Muslim members promotes inclusivity and broader representation. However, opponents contend that this move dilutes Muslim representation in bodies meant to serve their community and manage their religious affairs, thereby violating Articles 14 (equality), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution.

A major apprehension among critics is the perceived concentration of “unbridled power” in the hands of the executive. The amendments are seen as shifting control from the community-led Waqf Boards to government-appointed officials, potentially leading to increased bureaucratic interference in religious matters. For instance, the Act empowers District Collectors to conduct surveys of Waqf properties and resolve disputes, functions previously held by Waqf Boards and Tribunals. This transfer of judicial functions to the executive raises concerns about conflicts of interest and lack of independent oversight.

Furthermore, a central point of contention is the alleged discriminatory premise of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. Critics highlight that similar legislative scrutiny and far-reaching changes have not been applied to religious endowment boards governing Hindu, Sikh, or Jain religious properties. This perceived unequal treatment, they argue, constitutes hostile discrimination against the Muslim community on the grounds of religion, in violation of constitutional principles of secularism and equality. The government, in its defense before the Supreme Court, has argued that Waqf boards deal with the secular management of properties, which the state has the power to regulate, unlike Hindu religious endowment boards that deal with religious rituals.

Conclusion

The challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, before the Supreme Court present a significant test for India’s constitutional framework, particularly concerning religious freedom, minority rights, and the balance of power between the executive and religious institutions. The outcome of these batch matters will have far-reaching implications for the administration of Waqf properties and could set an important precedent for the state’s role in governing religious endowments in India. The Court’s decision will be keenly awaited, as it navigates the complex interplay of transparency, efficiency, religious autonomy, and constitutional guarantees.