The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has become a flashpoint for legal and political debate in India, drawing sharp criticism from legal experts, community leaders, and civil society. Brought into effect on April 8, the new law has been challenged in the Supreme Court by senior advocates including Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi. The petitioners argue that the law undermines the constitutional rights of the Muslim community, especially with respect to Waqf properties, which are religious endowments used for charitable and community purposes. Critics say the law threatens the autonomy of Waqf Boards and could severely impact centuries-old Islamic traditions of donating property for public welfare.
Understanding Waqf
Waqf is a long-standing Islamic practice wherein individuals donate land or property for religious or charitable purposes. These assets—ranging from mosques and graveyards to schools, hospitals, and community centers—are meant to benefit the public and are managed by Waqf Boards. The Boards were originally established under the Waqf Act of 1995 to ensure the donated properties serve the community in line with the intentions of their donors. These Boards are responsible for protecting and overseeing lakhs of such properties across the country, many of which have existed for generations without formal documentation.
What the 2025 Waqf Amendment Changes
The 2025 amendment introduces several sweeping reforms. It now allows any individual, not just a stakeholder or Waqf beneficiary, to raise objections about whether a property qualifies as Waqf. This broadens the scope for legal disputes and, according to petitioners, opens the door to misuse by vested interests. Properties declared as protected monuments by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will automatically lose their Waqf status, shifting control away from the community. Additionally, unregistered Waqf properties—despite their long-standing religious or community use—are barred from seeking legal protection in court. One of the most debated changes is the inclusion of non-Muslims in the administration of Waqf Boards, which the government argues will bring greater transparency and improve governance. However, critics view this as a significant intrusion into religious affairs.
Why the Government Supports the Changes
The government has defended the amendment by citing a sharp rise—reportedly 116%—in the number of Waqf properties between 2013 and 2024. Officials argue that such growth raises questions about the classification and management of these assets. By allowing greater public scrutiny and demanding stricter documentation, the government claims it is aiming for more accountability and fairer management. It also asserts that excluding Waqf claims from ASI-protected monuments is necessary to preserve national heritage sites for all citizens, rather than placing them under the control of one community. The inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards is presented as a step toward administrative diversity and reform.
Why the Waqf Amendments Are Being Opposed
Senior advocates appearing before the Supreme Court have strongly opposed the amendments, describing them as a “creeping acquisition” of Muslim endowments. Kapil Sibal argued that Section 3C of the amendment allows any outsider to raise a dispute, which can be investigated by a government-appointed officer without any clear timeline or transparent procedure. This, he said, could freeze the use of entire properties even if a small portion is challenged, putting essential community services like schools, hospitals, and burial grounds at risk. The law does not restrict demolition during such disputes, nor does it prevent the creation of third-party rights, effectively leaving the properties vulnerable. Moreover, the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Boards is viewed as a dilution of the community’s right to manage its own religious affairs. Sibal pointed out that no similar rule applies to Hindu or Sikh religious trusts, which are not required to include members from outside their faith. A.M. Singhvi highlighted the broader implications of invalidating unregistered Waqf properties—many of which lack documents but have existed for centuries—saying this would deny them any legal recourse. He also warned that applying ancient monument laws to religious sites could undermine the protections offered under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Who Will Be Affected?
The effects of the amendment could be far-reaching. It could impact the Muslim community’s access to places of worship, education, and healthcare that are currently supported by Waqf assets. Waqf caretakers and religious leaders may lose control over their institutions, while families who donated property in good faith may feel their contributions are being disregarded. With the power to challenge Waqf status now extended to the general public, there is concern that politically motivated or frivolous challenges could become common. The Waqf Boards may also lose significant autonomy, while archaeological authorities stand to gain administrative control over numerous disputed properties. Additionally, the courts are likely to see a surge in property-related litigation.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments for an interim stay on the law’s implementation. During the latest session, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai acknowledged that parliamentary laws carry a presumption of constitutionality but added that the court could step in if the law causes irreparable harm. The petitioners are pressing for immediate relief, arguing that the law is already affecting the community. The Centre is expected to present its counter-arguments soon. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how India navigates the balance between secular governance and the constitutional protections guaranteed to religious minorities.