Editorial | Waqf Bill: When law is deceitful

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, passed in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, falls along a continuum of Muslim marginalisation that began with cow slaughter bans and Muslim lynchings across the country in 2015. Then, in 2019, under the guise of ameliorating the plight of divorced women, the Triple Talaq bill was used to drive a wedge into the marital customs of the minority community. With this amendment to the Waqf Act of 1995, the Narendra Modi regime aims to grab an important role in the administration of Muslim endowment properties.

Given that this regime looked away when state governments used bulldozers to raze Muslim people’s properties, there can only be foreboding in the hearts of the minority community when the government says it wants to administer waqf properties better. As one Muslim leader asked, since when did this government lose any sleep over the plight of Muslims?

The bill renames the original 1995 act as the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act. The stated aims of the altered law are typical terms neoliberal governments use to couch crony capitalist intent, and the deceitful acronym is a favourite tic of the Modi government. While the bill claims to enhance transparency and improve the management of waqf properties, it introduces provisions that undermine the autonomy of Muslim institutions and increase governmental control over waqf assets. This is not administrative reform; it is an assumption of decisive power over Muslim land holdings.

The bill grants unprecedented authority to government officials over waqf properties. Previously, waqf disputes were adjudicated by independent Waqf Tribunals, but under this amendment, district collectors will have power to determine whether a property is waqf or government-owned. This provision effectively removes decision-making from minority institutions and places it in the hands of state-appointed officials, raising concerns about potential bias and misuse of power in favour of the government.

Further, the amendment eliminates the long-established concept of ‘waqf by user’" which recognized properties that were used for religious or charitable purposes for extended periods, many of them without formal documentation. This change threatens to strip numerous mosques, graveyards, and religious sites of their waqf status, exposing them to potential land disputes and government acquisition.

Another controversial provision is the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards. The amendment allows state governments to appoint non-Muslim officials, including a non-Muslim CEO and at least two non-Muslim members, to Waqf Boards. The government offers a wicked justification that this is a step towards inclusivity, disregarding the fundamental principle that religious endowments should be managed by members of the faith they serve.

The bill also mandates that all waqf declarations be made through a written waqfnama (deed), thereby eliminating the long-standing practice of oral waqf declarations. While this may seem like a bureaucratic streamlining effort, it poses a significant risk to properties that were historically declared waqf orally but lack official documentation. Many religious and charitable properties, especially in rural areas, fall into this category. By disqualifying oral waqfs, the government could invalidate the waqf status of numerous properties, opening them up for state takeover or private claims.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill is not a mere regulatory measure. It represents a fundamental restructuring of how waqf properties are governed, with serious consequences for the Muslim community. By handing over significant control to government officials, dismantling long-standing waqf practices, and undermining religious autonomy, the bill threatens to alienate an already marginalized community.