Civil liberties groups, politicians and many legal scholars have drawn attention to a troubling pattern. While the government claims that this law brings accountability, critics ask why only Muslim charitable land is being singled out for such legislation. A report by Bijoy Patro
In a heated legislative week in New Delhi, Parliament passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, triggering a fierce national debate on minority rights, land governance, and religious equity. The Bill, now the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025,introduced by the BJP-led NDA government, sought to amend the Waqf Act of 1995, expanding the state’s oversight over Muslim-donated charitable properties – sparking backlash from opposition parties and civil society groups who accuse the government of targeting the Muslim community under the guise of reforms.
The term Waqf, rooted in Islamic law, refers to an endowment made by a Muslim to a religious, educational, or charitable cause. These properties – mosques, graveyards, madrasas, or orphanages – are considered dedicated in the name of Allah and cannot be sold, gifted, or inherited. A lot of Waqf property is also property that Muslims moving to East and West Pakistan at the time of the country’s partition left behind in India – mainly in the states of UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana and Bengal.
India is home to one of the largest collections of Waqf properties in the world, with Home Minister Amit Shah stating in Parliament that the total Waqf land in the country stands at over 39 lakh acres.
The Waqf Board, which oversees these assets, has historically been regulated under the Ministry of Minority Affairs. Surveyors are appointed by the government, and the system, like many bureaucratic bodies in India, has faced allegations of corruption and mismanagement. Still, the Waqf has remained a symbol of community self-governance.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 introduces sweeping changes:
Section 40 Redefined: This section, the most controversial, empowers the Waqf Board to initiate suo motu action to declare any property as Waqf. Critics argue this gives the Board near-unchecked power to claim land without prior legal adjudication.
Appeals Framework Modified: The amendment reduces the role of judicial intervention in disputes by modifying how appeals against Waqf property decisions are handled.
Governmental Oversight: There is greater scope for central intervention in Waqf affairs, raising questions about federalism and religious autonomy.
The government insists the Act is a long-overdue reform that modernises and streamlines Waqf governance. “This is not about religion. It’s about accountability,” said BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad. “If 39 lakh acres of land are tied to charity, they must be transparently administered,” he reasons
Outrage: “Religious Targeting” Civil liberties groups, politicians and many legal scholars have drawn attention to a troubling pattern. While the government claims that this law brings accountability, why, critics ask, is only Muslim charity land being subjected to such legislation?
The opposition, led by the Congress, the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party, and the Trinamool Congress, have vehemently opposed the Bill.
CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat slammed the legislation as “unconstitutional and communal,” stating, “This is nothing but a direct attack on the rights of the Muslim community. The government is making a grab for Waqf lands under the guise of reform.”
Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee pointed out that the redefined Section 40 essentially enables the Waqf Board to classify any land as religious endowment without proper verification. He said that this was akin to land acquisition by stealth:“What stops the Board from claiming a land parcel overnight and rendering lakhs homeless?”
John Brittas of the CPI(M) raised the temperature in the RajyaSabha by calling the BJP “Judases who betrayed the Constitution,” while actor-turned-MP Suresh Gopi countered with scathing remarks on the Left’s “murderous politics.”
There is a case to be made for a uniform religious trust regulation law, said an activist. “Why does the government not create a single law that governs properties owned by all religious institutions – Hindu temples, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, and Muslim Waqf? Targeting only one community feeds a perception of bias.”
Writing for the online news portal, The Wire, legal expert Faizan Mustafa asked if non-Hindus would be even allowed, let alone mandated “on temple boards”. He says that Buddhists are already protesting what they see as effective control by Hindus of the most holy site for them, the Mahabodhi temple at Bodhgaya. They want the Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949 repealed. The effective primacy of non-Buddhists – the Hindu heading the Buddhist temple’s board – has been in place since 1949. Insecurity has led to agitations as Buddhists sense the temperature being raised by Hindu majoritarian forces in the country, he says.
That perception was reinforced when the RSS mouthpiece, Organiser briefly published and then deleted an editorial suggesting that Church-run institutions should also be regulated under a central framework. Though quickly taken down, the article fanned speculation that similar legislation for Christian charities may be on the anvil.
A Regulated System Already Ironically, the Waqf system in India has long been heavily regulated. The Central Waqf Council, formed under the Waqf Act of 1954 and strengthened in the 1995 iteration, already has government-nominated members and is answerable to the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
Surveyors are government-appointed. Critics of the Bill argue that this overregulation has bred bureaucracy and corruption, but rather than improving transparency through digitisation and public accountability, the government has chosen to increase centralised control, they lament.
The law has sparked widespread protests in several parts of the country, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. In UP police detained over 100 protesters who objected to the law, with some reportedly asked to furnish Rs10-lakh bonds to secure their release.
The CPI(M) and other Left groups have pledged legal action. In a party congress resolution, they vowed to “fight the Bill using all available democratic and legal forums.”
Legal experts also foresee constitutional challenges. “The freedom to manage religious affairs is a fundamental right under Article 26,” said Supreme Court lawyer Indira Jaising. “This law infringes that right in a discriminatory manner.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi defended the Act, casting it as a move toward social justice and equity. “For too long, appeasement politics has clouded genuine reform. This bill is not against Muslims. It is against corruption,” he said at a rally in Varanasi.
He accused the opposition of stoking communal tensions for electoral gains. “They fear the loss of control over vote banks and are misleading the community.”
The Prime Minister’s remarks hint at the political stakes in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, states with significant Muslim populations, where the BJP faces stiff competition from the INDIA alliance.
Some political analysts have likened the Waqf Bill to the Shah Bano moment of the 1980s, when the Congress government reversed a Supreme Court judgment granting alimony to a Muslim woman under pressure from conservative clerics. That incident alienated progressive voices and gave the BJP a potent narrative on its version of secularism.
Meanwhile, Muslims feel increasingly alienated. “It’s like being punished for being charitable,” said Delhi-based Waqf caretaker Imran Qureshi. “The government wants our land but doesn’t want to hear our voice.”
The road ahead will likely be stormy. Petitions have already been filed in several high courts, and a challenge in the Supreme Court is expected soon. Opposition parties are rallying around the issue, and mass mobilisations are being planned in various states.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear – the controversy surrounding the Waqf Amendment Bill is about more than just land. It is about trust, identity, and the role of the state in religious life. Whether this becomes a watershed moment like Shah Bano or just another flashpoint in India’s endless political theatre remains to be seen.
Post Script: Ajmal, a fruit seller on the streets of East Delhi says that the “Waqf Bill is too big for a small person like me to even understand.” But, he says, he doesn’t believe it will do the community any good – “because it comes from Modi and Modi’s BJP, which have a strident anti-Muslim position for votes and to rule the country.”
The fruit seller, after all, might have provided us with what the hullabaloo is all about.
