Explained: 5 key concerns about Waqf Bill, govt’s reasoning for it

The Bill was first introduced in August last year, and referred to a House panel headed by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. On February 27, the panel, in a 15-11 vote, cleared 14 amendments, all moved by BJP members or its allies in the National Democratic Alliance.

The opposition members in the committee submitted dissent notes, voicing their opposition to the Bill. All the opposition members in the panel sought to undo the proposed 44 amendments to the 1995 Bill.

Here are five key concerns of the Opposition and the critics of the changes, and the government’s reasoning on the Bill.

1. Why amend the law?

The primary objection to the Waqf Bill, 2025 is framed in questioning the need for bringing a new law that changes the way Waqfs are managed.

Asaduddin Owaisi of the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) has said that the Bill’s objective is to weaken the foundations of Waqf governance and to undermine the rights of Muslims.

Government officials say that the 1995 Act contains some loopholes with regard to the regulation of Waqf properties including title disputes, and the illegal occupation of Waqf land, which has prompted the Centre to bring a fresh law.

Also, the lack of judicial oversight on Waqf management is a key issue, according to officials. Questions concerning Waqf properties are heard by the Waqf Tribunal whose decisions cannot be challenged in court.

The Bill is also being brought at a time when the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act is under challenge before the Delhi High Court. The government has argued that a unified digital listing of Waqf properties, which is mandated by the Bill, will bring down litigation and ensure transparency and efficiency in governing Waqf properties.

2. Possible govt interference

A major criticism of the opponents of the Bill is that it gives the government a handle to regulate the management of Waqf properties, and the power to determine whether a property is a Waqf.

Section 40 of the Waqf Act empowers the Waqf Board to decide if a property is Waqf property. The decision of the Board would be final unless it is revoked or modified by the Waqf Tribunal.

The Bill extends this power, which currently lies with the Waqf Tribunal, to the District Collector.

The Bill states that “any government property identified or declared as Waqf property, before or after the commencement of the Act, shall not be deemed to be a Waqf property.” This determination, however, is to be made by the Collector, not the Waqf Tribunal.

The Bill also states that until the government makes a decision, the disputed property will be treated as a government property and not a Waqf property.

The government’s intention behind bringing this crucial change is the alleged misuse of Waqf laws, sources said. According to government officials, Section 40 of the Waqf Act is “widely misused to declare private properties as Waqf properties, causing legal battles and unrest”.

The Joint Committee of Parliament that considered the Bill recommended an amendment proposed by a TDP MP to replace the District Collector in the dispute resolution process with a more senior officer of the state government.

The amendments also seek to remove the concept of “Waqf by use”, which means that a property can be deemed to be a Waqf through use as a Waqf, even if the original declaration is suspect.

In Islamic law, the dedication of a property as Waqf was done largely verbally until documentation became the standard norm. For example, even in the absence of a Waqfnama, a masjid can be deemed to be Waqf property if it is continuously used as such.

The Bill, by omitting the provisions relating to the “Waqf by user,” makes a Waqf property suspect in the absence of a valid Waqfnama.

3. Survey of properties

The 1995 Act prescribes a survey of auqaf (plural of waqf) by a Survey Commissioner appointed by the state government. The amendment Bill replaces the Survey Commissioner with the District Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector duly nominated by the Collector.

It is learnt that the government’s reasoning for this change is that survey work has been poor in several states. Officials said that in Gujarat and Uttarakhand, surveys have not yet begun, while a survey ordered in Uttar Pradesh in 2014 is still pending.

4. Representation on Boards

Another criticism of the Bill is that it changes the representation of Waqf Boards.

The Bill proposes allowing a non-Muslim Chief Executive Officer, and at least two non-Muslim members to be appointed by the state government to the Waqf Boards at the state level. Critics of the Bill argue that this could interfere with the community’s right to manage its own affairs, a constitutionally protected right.

On the issue of having non-Muslim representation in the Waqf Board, government officials argue that the move is aimed at bringing expertise and promotes transparency without undermining community representation.

While there will be non-Muslim members on the Board, they will not form the majority, government sources said.

BJP MP Abhijit Gangopadhyay proposed an amendment to this provision before the House panel, which would ensure a more inclusive representation — that the state government official who is part of the Waqf Board shall be a Joint Secretary-level officer “dealing with Waqf matters”.

5. Application of Limitation Act

The Bill proposes to delete Section 107 of the 1995 law that had made the Limitation Act, 1963 inapplicable to Waqf properties.

The Limitation Act is a statutory bar on individuals from filing cases after a period of time. Essentially, this provision ensured that the Waqf Board is not limited by the statutory timeframe of 12 years to file a case to reclaim its properties from encroachment.

Opposition members have argued that the deletion of this provision will allow a person who has unlawfully possessed Waqf property for more than 12 years to claim its title by adverse possession.