Author: Samridham Goyal

The evolution of Waqf dates back to 628 A.D. During the Battle of Khyber, Hazrat Umar acquired a land and asked Prophet Mohammed for advice on what to do with it. The Prophet had suggested dedicating the land in the name of Allah for the welfare of humanity. That moment is considered as the founding stone of the Waqf.

Fast forward to the Waqf Act, 1995, where Section 3(r) defines Waqf as the permanent dedication of movable or immovable property free of encumbrance for pious, religious, or charitable purposes under Muslim law. For example, if Mr. X donates any land for religious or charitable use, it becomes Waqf property. 

Now comes the interesting part: why the government has introduced the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. They state that the aim is to increase transparency in managing Waqf properties. It has added two non-Muslims to the Waqf Board and has removed Section 40 of the 1995 Act, which previously allowed the board to make broad claims on properties like the Taj Mahal, or 389 acres in Thiruchendurai village, Tamil Nadu. This move, the government says, protects rightful owners from unjust claims.

However, the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, has faced criticism for being oppressive. There are provisions in the amendment act that many perceive as arbitrary, and we’ll explore some of those and try to understand why people are so upset about these changes.

1) Section 3(r) (i) Waqf by user, which now stands omitted.

You’ve probably seen some religious places that have been around for centuries and used by generations for prayer, charity, or community service. Even if there’s no formal paperwork saying who owns the land, people have always known that it’s meant for religious use. That’s basically what the idea of “Waqf by user” is all about. It means if a property has been used for religious or charitable purposes for a really long time, it’s recognized as Waqf even without an official ownership deed.

A great example is the Jama Masjid in Delhi, built over 300 years ago. It’s still used for prayers, and even without an ownership document, it’s long been accepted as Waqf by user. This concept has helped to protect the historic religious spaces from being taken over just because they lack paperwork.

But the Amendment Act of 2025 has changed that. It has removed Waqf by user from the Waqf Act, even though the Supreme Court upheld it in M. Siddiq v. Suresh Mahant Das (2020). Now even if a Waqf property doesn’t have a deed it is no longer legally protected.

Take the Dargah of Hazrat Abbas in Uttar Pradesh—a place where newly married Muslim couples seek blessings. Without a deed, they are at risk of being vacated or demolished. That raises serious concerns about the right to practice and manage religious affairs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

2) Section 3(r): Demonstrate a person has been a practicing Muslim for at least 5 years.

Here’s something that has raised the eyebrows before the Amendment Act of 2025, anyone, no matter of their religion, could donate property to Allah for the welfare of humanity. But now, only Muslims can do this and they have to prove they’ve been practicing Islam for at least five years. That’s not just unfair to people of other faiths it also puts an unreasonable burden on Muslims. How are they supposed to demonstrate their faith, by wearing a taqiyah a tradional cap or other religious symbols? Faith is personal, that cannot be proven through demonstration. This change goes against Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to profess and practice religion.

3) Sections 9 and 14: composition of the central waqf council and state waqf board.

The recent amendment to the Waqf Act has created a buzz. In the Waqf 1995 Act, the State Waqf Boards were established to manage Waqf properties in each state, while the Central Waqf Council was tasked with advising on their overall administration. The changes in Sections 9 and 14, the law now allows for two non-Muslims to be appointed as members of both the State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. While no such provision existed before.

To really understand the weight of this change, think about the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board. It’s managed under the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, and Section 8 of this Act bars non-Hindus as members of the board. The big question is, if Hindus can have full control over managing their religious institutions, shouldn’t Muslims have that same right? Imagine the reaction if two Muslims or non-Hindus were appointed to the Vaishno Devi Shrine Board. People would be up in arms and rightfully so, because it’s about preserving their religious sanctity.

That gut reaction that we have to protect what’s sacred to us that’s exactly what Muslims are feeling with this amendment. And from a constitutional standpoint, this raises serious concerns. Article 14 guarantees equality, and Articles 25 and 26 guarantees the freedom to practice and manage religious affairs. So, if we’re a truly secular country, that respect and freedom should apply to everyone equally.

To conclude, the Amendment Act puts a check on the Waqf Board’s powers, which had remained unchecked for too long. So, giving rightful owners a protective shield is definitely a welcome move. But here’s the catch in trying to fix one problem, the government has created another. By going too far, it’s now infringing on the rights of the Muslim community, especially regarding their religious spaces—places where people pray, gather, and remember their loved ones.

Seen from a broader angle, there are about 8.72 Lakh Waqf properties across the country. Out of those, 4.02 Lakh fall under the category of “Waqf by user” meaning they’ve been used for generations as mosques, schools, graveyards, and other community spaces. By removing the Waqf by user provision, nearly half of these properties are suddenly up in the air.

Yes, the Waqf Board has had issues, but when a poisonous spider enters the house, you kill the spider you don’t burn the house down. The same logic applies here. Fix what’s broken, but don’t punish the whole community for the actions of a few. In a secular country, the laws should reflect that spirit not undermine it.