Authored By: SWIKRUT SWAROOP SAHU
SOA National Institute of Law
Introduction
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 of India is a landmark legislation that would bring a fresh novelty to the management of waqf properties that have associated their history, characterized by mismanagement, encroachments and lengthy court battles[1]. Waqf assets encompass a wide range of religious endowments under the personal law of Muslims, and they are also characterized by the fact that, occupied by an area of over 9.4 lakh acres of land and spread on more than 8 lakh properties, they represent the strongest portion of charitable property under the Indian constitutional democracy; a process that has only been catalysed by the need to reform the Indian legal system to facilitate maximum utilization of the available resources in the charitable sector.
Legislative Evolution
Historical Context of Waqf Laws
Waquf, which is a terminology in Islamic law, refers to endowing movable or immovable assets in perpetuity, towards a pious, religious, or charitable purpose, the corpus of which is inalienable, the benefices of which accrue indefinitely to designated purposes. In colonial India, it was in the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913 and later acts such as the Wakf Act, 1954, that attempted to regularize the creation and administration of waqfs to overcome ambiguity in their creation and administration. These efforts have been consolidated in the Waqf Act, 1995 which reinstated Central and State Waqf Boards, Survey Commissioners, and Tribunals to address registration, surveys, and disputes[2].
With these efforts, the implementation failed. Government reports as at 2020 indicated that there were encroachments on almost 58,000 properties, whereas public trust was undermined by opaque accounting and political interference. Mutawallis (managers) used to have minimal accountability resulting in the loss of revenues in the range of thousands of crores per year. These maladies were brought to light in the Sachar Committee Report (2006)[3], which suggested the digitization and professional control, but no improvements were made at a very slow pace. The pressure of PILs and parliamentary discussions at the time prompting widespread reform has highlighted the pro-reform motivation in the Act: to turn waqf into a more sustainable socio-economic tool rather than a litigation-prone asset.
Key Changes Introduced
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 brings forth re-form multi-dimensional changes. The geo tagging, update of mutations and public access are compulsory under a centralized registration through a national digital portal because they restrain unauthorized occupations. Section 3C empowers District Collectors or revenue officers (or any other person or body) with deciding the title matter initially, so as to provide an expedited process compared to the lengthy court proceedings of a civil lawsuit. Section 3(r) qualifies those who create waqf by five years practising the Islam religion to ensure that there is no fraud in the dedication of waqf by non-practitioners. Calibrated inclusion is made into the board’s composition: as many as four non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and three in State Boards so as to represent various expertise without watering down the Muslim-majority authority[4].
Other clauses give Boards authority to consolidate small waqfs to manage jointly, ease three-year-plus leasing with government licensure and inclusion of penalties against non-adherence, such as the property resumption. Though a mere administrative facade, these changes have significant social consequences, including religious autonomy, property rights, and federal dynamics, which can be described as triggering judicial review.
Constitutional Challenges
Grounds of Challenge
The crucial issues that legal challenges, led by waqf boards, mutawallis, and Muslim organizations revolved around were the fundamental rights represented. Article 14 was applied to arbitrary classifications, including the practice threshold found in Section 3(r), which the petitioners considered to be retrospectual and unprovable, and invalidated old waqfs. Article 25 and 26, which guaranteed the freedom of religion and the right of denominations, were referred to in clauses that diminished the independence of waqf boards by incorporations of non-Muslims and executive vetoes. The protection in the article 300A against property deprivation was contended against in opposition with revenue officer rulings that did not have due process[5].
Opponents also made federal expansion claims, with states historically leading waqfs, violated by the allocation of legislative powers under Article 246. There were no stakeholder consultations which increased the allegations of procedure infirmity under the repugnancy test in Articles 13. These arguments put the Act not as harmless reform but as an attack on minority endowments, a historical clash between monotony and diversity.
Supreme Court Intervention
On September 12, 2025, a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna allowed interim relief in W.P. (C) No. 1028/2025 in a partial manner. Section 3(r) was suspended throughout the country, as the Court noted its obvious arbitrariness on the absence of empirical verification tools of this kind, which may retroactively disturb the valid waqfs. The same did section 3C which was precluded by injunction as it violated the separation of powers that the forums of revenue executives could not replace judicial or quasi-judicial courts that were established under Article 323B. The bench respected imperatives of registration, dedication verification in 1995 and representations, reasoning that non-Muslim presence should be an administrative necessity like under Article 15(4) exceptions[6].
Equity and efficiency were balanced by having Muslim appointments as the CEOs when feasible. This delicate balance–remaining 12 percent provisions, while permitting 88 percent–is among the products of proportionality doctrine, and does not lead to constitutional malaise of the law. Notices sent to the Union, full trials were planned in November 2025, which indicated a long process of questioning.
Analysis of Key Provisions
Comparative Framework: Pre- and post-amendment:
Aspect | Pre-2025 Framework | Post-Amendment Framework | Constitutional Impact |
Registration | Decentralized, optional | Mandatory national portal with GIS mapping | Enhances transparency (Art. 14 compliant) |
Dispute Resolution | Waqf Tribunals, civil courts | District Collectors (stayed); appeals to tribunals | Risks executive bias (separation of powers) |
Board Composition | Exclusively Muslim | Capped non-Muslim (4 Central, 3 State) | Tests Art. 26 autonomy |
Creator Eligibility | Intent-based validation | 5-year practice proof (stayed) | Potential Art. 14 violation |
Property Management | Mutawalli discretion | Board amalgamation, long-term leases | Boosts revenue (Art. 300A neutral) |
Doctrinal Underpinnings
The conclusions echo the fundamental doctrine of Kesavananda Bharati’s[7] basic structure doctrine, that the judicial review is insulated by the basic structure against encroaching on amendments. Minerva Mills v. Union of India[8] emphasizes that there are no economic reforms, which can step on the harmony of rights. The right to administration of religious matters in article 26, which is a subject of the public order of morality and health, accommodates but not the domination. The test of proportionality, Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh[9] weight least restraining alternatives here vindicated by partial validation.
At the federal level, List III, Entry 28 (charities) and Entry 10 (trusts) allow coincidental legislation but the sensitivities at the state level require cooperative federalism.
Critical Perspectives
Merits of Reform
Advocates count the benefits digitization has in preventing the 12000 crore a year loss to encroachments, allowing waqf funds to be remitted to education and health that would support Sustainable Development Goals. The inclusion of non-Muslims follows the same pattern as temple board constructions under Hindu Religious Endowment Acts, and this encourages the system of secular management. Prompt resolution of conflicts and 4 lakh pending cases cleared off benefiting devotees[10].
Demerits and Risks
Critics cry foul of over-centralization, of putting excessive authority in Union controlled portals, against the independence of the states. Practice requirements run the risk of communal profiling, with stayed provisions running an emphasis on legislative haste. The geo-tag privacy in Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is large in magnitude and may be used against sensitive sites at the hands of rogue people, so disparities in implementation across 32 states with waqf may increase inequity. Judicial activism attacks emerge: interim stays albeit tentative hold reforms in abeyance before merits are decided. Hybrid secular-religious government is proposed as alternative in comparative lenses such as those of Turkey Diyanet model or of Malaysia JAKIM.
Stakeholder Dynamics
AIMPLB and other Muslim groups lament against majoritarian imposition whereas progressive groups embrace audits. There are 2 lakh properties that government data has stated to have been digitized pre-emptively but ground reports that are also telling of threats due to vested mutawallis.
Way Forward and Comparative Insights
An all-volunteer set of legislation would be required to facilitate future proofing: add appellate overrides to revenue determinations, time limits to representation limits, and AI verify practice claims. Such models, with a combination of faith and fiduciary duty, are replicable with international standards of technocracy boards, including Singapore MUIS (Islamic Religious Council) where fiduciary forms the focal point of the entire institution. PIL monitoring and resistance constitute accountability through post implementation empirical audits[11].
Conclusion
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 marks the start of a revolution in the waqf ecosystem in India ensuring that governance is resistant to historical malady, yet the constitutional barriers are taken around the constitutional shoals influenced by the sagacity of the Supreme Court. By enforcing fundamental provisions and eliminating infirmities, the judiciary will revive its sentinel juristically nature to the advantage of harmonising reformist fervour with the sanctity of rights and will serve as the guarantee of perpetual waqf service to the Indian society free of schism[12].
In the future, there is nothing more likely than an ultimate resolution to proportionality, federalism, and the extent of permissible shapes of state intervention in minority endowments in light of the impending full hearing. By supporting a refined form of the Act, the Court would be able to jumpstart other religious property regimes towards the establishment of a cohesive but delicate system to support the plural society of India. On the contrary, an unconditional nullification of crucial provisions may fuel the demands of decentralized frameworks, with the community autonomy of governance and centralized digitalisation. Both results will add value to constitutional jurisprudence, reminiscing the timeless guard of the basic structure doctrine against existential dangers to the core of the Constitution.
This policy debate between the legislature and the judiciary is ultimately a symbol of the evolutional power of law in modern India. With the waqf properties, the beginnings of a long term philanthropic, transforming into the power sources of social good, the Act highlights the ability of maturing democracy to balance between tradition and modernity. The stakeholders now need to work together in implementation where more individual use of technology is developed in an ethical manner taking into consideration cultural insensitivity to unlock the full potential of waqf in nation-building. The sagacity of the Supreme Court will continue in this contest to act as the lodestar of reforms empowering, yet not disabling, uniting, yet never disintegrating, and durable, yet never dying.
Reference(S):
[1] Waqf Act, No. 43 of 1995 (India).
[2] Id. pmbl.
[3] Rajinder Sachar, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India (Sachar Comm. Report, 2006).
[4] Waqf (Amendment) Act, No. 21 of 2025 (India).
[5] India Const. arts. 14, 25–26, 300A.
[6] In re Constitutionality of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, W.P.(C) No. 1028/2025 (India, interim order at 12 Sept. 2025).
[7]Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
[8] Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625.
[9] Modern Dental Coll. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 353.
[10] Ministry of Minority Affs., Annual Report 2024–25 (India).
[11] Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, Governance Framework (2024), https://www.muis.gov.sg https://perma.cc/XXXX-XXXX (21 Feb. 2026).
[12] Supra note 6.
