The Waqf (Amendment)Act 2025 has been met with widespread criticism across India, particularly from the Muslim community, religious leaders of various faiths, civil society groups, legal experts, and political leaders. Despite the government’s claims that the Act represents a progressive move toward transparency, modernisation, and accountability, critics argue that it is built on misleading narratives and half-truths.
The government, particularly through Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, claims to have framed the Act as a means to empower marginalised sections of the Muslim community. It has been portrayed as a reform effort aimed at strengthening administrative processes without interfering in religious matters. However, those opposing the Act believe otherwise. They argue that the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, along with new requirements such as mandatory formal property deeds, poses serious threats to the autonomy of Muslim institutions and undermines traditional practices associated with Waqf properties.
Legal experts have pointed out that the Act lacks real provisions to enhance transparency or accountability. Instead, it introduces changes that weaken the Muslims’ traditional control over their religious endowments. For instance, the Act abolishes the concept of “Waqf by user,” a principle that allowed properties used for religious purposes over time to automatically attain Waqf status. This abolition is seen as a direct attack on preserving religious heritage and long-standing community practices.
The government asserts that the Act is solely about property management and does not interfere in religious practices. However, organisations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board strongly disagree. They see the Act as an attack on religious and cultural identity, arguing that property management in the context of Waqf is inseparably tied to religious observance and tradition. They warn that empowering district collectors to determine the ownership of disputed Waqf properties opens the door for potential political misuse, arbitrary decisions, and the widespread dispossession of Muslim-owned properties.
Critics highlight three major concerns regarding the Waqf Amendment Act:
The Act is perceived as violating the constitutional right of Muslims to independently manage their religious affairs. By mandating the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and imposing stringent formal requirements for property validation, the government is accused of intruding into religious self-governance. Opponents argue that religious institutions should retain the exclusive right to oversee their internal matters without outside interference, particularly from those who may not share their faith or understand their traditions.
The removal of “Waqf by User”provision is particularly alarming for many. This principle has historically ensured that properties used informally for religious purposes were protected under Waqf law. Its abolition could lead to the erosion of centuries-old practices, monuments, and properties that have been integral to the cultural and spiritual life of Muslims in India. Without this protection, many religious sites could be vulnerable to commercial exploitation, appropriation, or neglect.
Granting district collectors the authority to determine the ownership of Waqf properties raises fears of bureaucratic overreach and political manipulation. Critics warn that in a polarised political climate, such powers could be used to target Muslims, leading to the unjust seizure and reallocation of their properties under administrative pretexts. The risk of corruption and misuse of power could increase rather than decrease under the new law.
The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is seen by its opponents as a veiled attempt to control and weaken Muslim religious institutions under the guise of reform. The government’s narrative, claiming that the Act is meant to enhance transparency and empower marginalised groups, does not adequately address the deep concerns about religious freedom, property rights, and cultural preservation raised by a broad coalition of stakeholders.
The backlash against the Act has grown rapidly, suggesting that the controversy is far from resolved. Legal challenges are expected, and grassroots mobilisations are likely to intensify as the Muslim community and civil rights groups push back against what they see as an unconstitutional and discriminatory measure. The fundamental rights to religious freedom, cultural identity, and community autonomy are perceived to be under threat, making this issue a significant flashpoint in the broader debate over minority rights and secularism in India.
The criticism surrounding the Act highlights the dangers of government actions that are perceived to prioritise administrative control over constitutional and religious protections. While reform and modernisation of institutions are necessary, they must be carried out transparently, inclusively, and with full respect for the rights and sentiments of affected communities. Without this, any reform risks being seen not as progress, but as an attempt to undermine the very groups it claims to support.
The Waqf Act represents more than just a legislative dispute; it is a profound challenge to the values of religious freedom, equality, and justice in a diverse and pluralistic society. The path ahead will likely involve intense legal, political, and social battles as affected communities fight to defend their rights and heritage.