India Explained
ImplementedBJPNarendra Modi, coalition governmentUnsettled

Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

The Act amended the Waqf Act, 1995 on registration, waqf creation, survey and dispute rules and board membership. In September 2025 the Supreme Court stayed some provisions and declined to stay the whole Act.

Waqf & endowments, Religious institutions & laws

Facts

  • The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 8 August 2024 and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by Jagdambika Pal, which reported on 30 January 2025. The Lok Sabha passed the Bill on 2 April 2025 (288 for, 232 against) and the Rajya Sabha on 3-4 April 2025 (128 for, 95 against) [1][3][4].
  • The President assented on 5 April 2025 and the Act came into force on 8 April 2025; the 1995 Act was renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act [4].
  • As introduced, the Bill added non-Muslim members to the Central Waqf Council and State Boards, removed the requirement that the CEO be Muslim, required a person to have practised Islam for five years to create a waqf, removed 'waqf by user', replaced the Survey Commissioner with the Collector, and provided that government property identified as waqf ceases to be waqf, with the Collector deciding ownership in disputes [1].
  • JPC-recommended changes reported as accepted or proposed included a designated officer in place of the Collector for disputes over government property, a prospective (not retrospective) omission of waqf by user, and a three-member Tribunal [3].
  • PRS reported about 8.72 lakh (8,72,328) registered immovable waqf properties as of September 2024, of which 7% were encroached, 2% under litigation and about 50% of unknown status; Uttar Pradesh held 27%. The Sachar Committee (2006) estimated their value at Rs 1.2 lakh crore [1]. Minister Kiren Rijiju told the Rajya Sabha the number of waqf properties rose from 4.9 lakh in 2004 to 8.72 lakh [5].
  • In an interim order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2025, announced on 15 September 2025 in most reports (LiveLaw gives 14 September; authorship and reservation history per Supreme Court Observer [6]), a bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih refused to stay the whole Act but stayed Section 3(1)(r) (five years' practice of Islam) until state rules exist to determine it, the proviso to Section 3C(2) and Sections 3C(3) and 3C(4). It directed that waqf property not be dispossessed nor records changed until the Tribunal decides title, and that the Central Waqf Council have no more than 4 non-Muslim members out of 22 and State Boards no more than 3 out of 11. It did not stay the CEO provision (Section 23), though it said efforts should be made to appoint a Muslim CEO where possible, and did not interfere with registration or with omission of waqf by user. It stated its findings were prima facie [2].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • Kiren Rijiju and Amit Shah said in the Lok Sabha that the Bill aims at effective management of waqf property so that its revenue is distributed fairly for the welfare of Muslims, and that it does not interfere with the religious affairs of Muslims [3].
  • They said the omission of waqf by user applies only going forward, and defended the Collector's role on the ground that the Collector handles revenue records and can inquire into ownership [3].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • Asaduddin Owaisi argued the Bill violates Article 25; Gaurav Gogoi (Congress) said the 2025 Act reduces reserved seats for women compared with the 1995 Act; opposition members objected to non-Muslim members on waqf bodies [3].
  • PRS noted the possible conflict with Article 26 (religious denominations' right to manage affairs), Article 14 on the five-year practice condition, and questioned the balance of power in Collector-led ownership decisions; it observed that Hindu and Sikh endowment laws generally require board members to share the religion [1]. JPC member Dr. Mohammad Jawed said the committee did not hold a clause-by-clause discussion, as reported [3].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Aims to improve records and management of a large property base whose status is often unclear.About 50% of 8.72 lakh registered properties had unknown status and 7% were reported encroached (Sept 2024) [1]. The Supreme Court observed that a registration requirement existed under earlier laws and did not stay it [2].
  • Provides for defined procedures for disputes over government land and for appeals.Designated officer and Tribunal route in the Act as passed; the Supreme Court stayed parts of the property-dispute mechanism pending Tribunal decisions [3][2].

Concerns (3)

  • Autonomy of religious communities in managing endowments.Petitioners rely on Articles 25 and 26; the Supreme Court limited non-Muslim members to 4 of 22 (Council) and 3 of 11 (State Boards) in its interim direction [3][2].
  • Executive determination of ownership of disputed property.The Court stayed Sections 3C(3) and 3C(4) and barred dispossession until Tribunal decision [2].
  • Treatment of long-standing waqf properties without deeds.Omission of waqf by user was not stayed; the Union said it applies prospectively; the final constitutional challenge remains pending [2][3][2].

Evidence points

−0.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
−1 to 0
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
scorers agree within 1 point on every criterion
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean −1.0A −1B −1
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +0.5A +1B 0

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Passed after committee review, but the Supreme Court stayed several provisions on a prima facie basis and the constitutional challenge is pending.

Scorer B. Contested provisions partly stayed by the Supreme Court and the JPC held no clause-by-clause discussion; outcomes are too early to assess.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
The Waqf Act, 1995 (amended 2013) governed Boards and Tribunals; the Sachar Committee (2006) had flagged poor records and encroachment.
Lag before outcomes show
3 years
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are 0 and −1. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The Act amends the 1995 law on the administration of waqf, which are endowments of property for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law. It changes who may create a waqf, how disputes over government land are decided, how surveys are done, who sits on Boards and the Council, and appeals from the Tribunal.

The Union government and supporters say the changes improve transparency and revenue use and do not interfere with religion; opponents and petitioners say they reduce the autonomy of the community and alter long-standing property status. The Supreme Court’s interim order took a middle course on the contested points: it stayed the five-year practice condition and parts of the Section 3C mechanism, capped non-Muslim members, and left registration and the end of waqf by user in place, noting its view was prima facie and the validity of the Act remains open for final hearing.

Figures about waqf property counts come from PRS (September 2024) and a ministerial statement in the Rajya Sabha; they differ in basis and date. Developments after the September 2025 order, including any final judgment, were not verified.

Source note: no primary document (statute text, Gazette notification, court judgment or official dataset) is listed for this entry; its sources are bill summaries, legal-news reports, encyclopaedic or commentary pieces. Confidence is therefore set to low until the primary text is checked.

Sources

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedINCReligion, Culture & SocietyUnsettled

    Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

    The Act freezes the religious character of places of worship as on 15 August 1947 and bars suits to change it, excepting Ayodhya. Its validity is before the Supreme Court, which paused new suits in December 2024.

    Evidence points +1.5 (range +1.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedINCReligion, Culture & Society

    Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

    Enacted after the Shah Bano judgment, the Act set post-divorce maintenance for Muslim women under a separate statute; the Supreme Court upheld it in 2001 while reading in a wider duty.

    Evidence points −3.5 (range −6.0 to −1.0)