अ सं क कास भाग (अ सं क आयोग)

Minority Development Department (Minority Commission)

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, recently enacted by the Indian Parliament, introduces signi cant
changes to the governance of waqf properties charitable endowments primarily managed by the
Muslim community.

Key Provisions of the Amendment:

1. Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members: The Act mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim

members in both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Speci cally, state
governments can nominate two non-Muslim members to the State Waqf Boards. Critics
argue that this could dilute the religious autonomy of these institutions, as similar boards for
other religions do not have such provisions.

2. Enhanced Government Oversight: The District Collector is now responsible for surveying
waqf properties, replacing the earlier role of the Survey Commissioner. Additionally, the Act
empowers government of cials to determine ownership in cases of disputed waqf properties,
raising concerns about potential misuse and political interference.

3. Changes to Tribunal Structure: The composition of waqf tribunals has been restructured
by removing the requirement for members knowledgeable in Muslim law. Instead, a joint
secretary-level of cer and a district court judge will oversee disputes. While this aims to
bring neutrality, some fear it may compromise the understanding of religious nuances in
waqf matters.

4. Digitization and Transparency: The Act emphasizes digitizing waqf property records and
mandates audits for institutions earning over ₹1 lakh, aiming to enhance transparency and
reduce corruption.

Implications for Minorities in Maharashtra:

• Autonomy Concerns: The inclusion of non-Muslim members and increased government

control may be perceived as encroachments on the religious autonomy of Muslim
institutions, potentially leading to tensions within the community.

• Property Rights: The shift in authority to government of cials for determining waqf
property ownership could result in disputes, especially for properties lacking formal
documentation, which is common in Maharashtra's older waqf establishments.

• Community Response: In Mumbai, the Dawoodi Bohra community has sought exemption
from the Act, citing their unique religious practices and governance structures. This
indicates apprehension among sub-sects about the uniform application of the amendments.

• State Government Actions: Amidst the controversy, the Maharashtra government allocated
₹10 crore to the State Waqf Board to improve its infrastructure and functioning, signaling an
attempt to address community concerns.
fi
ल्प
ख्या
fi
वि
वि
ल्प
ख्या
fi
fi
fi
Community Response

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has expressed strong opposition to the Act,
labeling it as discriminatory and a threat to minority rights. Nationwide protests have been
organized, including in Maharashtra, with plans for legal challenges in the Supreme Court.

In summary, while the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aims to bring transparency and inclusivity to
waqf property management, it has elicited signi cant concern among Muslim minorities in
Maharashtra. The perceived risks to property rights and religious autonomy have led to widespread
opposition and calls for reconsideration of the legislation.

Process of the introduction of Waqf Amendment Bill 2025:

• The Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 has been introduced with the primary objective
of addressing shortcomings in the management and governance of Waqf
properties on August 8, 2024.

• On August 9, 2024, both Houses of Parliament referred the Bill to a Joint Committee of 21
Lok Sabha and 10 Rajya Sabha members to examine and report on it.

• Keeping in view the importance of the Bill and its wide ranging implications, the Committee
had decided to call memoranda to obtain the views from public in general and experts/
stakeholders and other concerned organisations in particular on the provisions of the
aforesaid Bill.

• The Joint Parliamentary Committee held thirty-six sittings wherein, they heard the views/
suggestions of the representatives of various Ministries/Departments such as: Ministries of
Minority Affairs, Law and Justice, Railways (Railway Board), Housing and Urban Affairs,
Road Transport and Highways, Culture (Archaeological Survey of India), State
Governments, State Waqf Boards and experts/stakeholders.

• The first sitting took place on August 22, 2024 and the key stakeholders consulted during
the sittings were:

◦ All India Sunni Jamiyatul Ulama, Mumbai;

◦ Indian Muslims of Civil Rights (IMCR), New Delhi
◦ Muttaheda Majlis-e- Ulema, J&K (Mirwaiz Umar Farooq)
◦ Anjuman E Shiteali Dawoodi Bohra Community
◦ Chanakya National Law University, Patna
◦ All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaaz, Delhi
◦ All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Delhi
◦ All India Sufi Sajjadanashin Council (AISSC), Ajmer
◦ Muslim Rashtriya Manch, Delhi
◦ Muslim Women Intellectual Group - Dr. Shalini Ali, National Convener
◦ Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Delhi
◦ Shia Muslim Dharamguru and Intellectual Group
◦ Darul Uloom Deoband
fi
 • The Committee received 97,27,772 memoranda in total, through both physical and digital
mode.

• The Committee consulted 25 State Waqf Boards (7 in Delhi, 18 during visits) to discuss
administrative challenges and legal hurdles.

• Thereafter, the Joint Committee completed Clause by Clause consideration of all Clauses of
the Bill at their 37th sitting held on 27th January, 2025. The amendments moved by the
Members were put to vote and adopted by majority votes.

• The Adoption draft report and authorized the Chairperson to present the report on their
behalf. The 38th sitting was held on 29th January, 2025.

• The Joint Committee submitted its report to the Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha on
31.01.2025 and laid in both the Houses of the Parliament on 13th February, 2025.

These additional provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, while aiming to enhance
transparency and inclusivity, have elicited varied responses from the Muslim community in
Maharashtra. Concerns revolve around the potential administrative burdens, risks to property rights
due to documentation requirements, and the implications of increased governmental oversight. The
community continues to engage in discussions and legal evaluations to address these challenges.