Waqf Bill Clash: Big conflict over 5 major changes 

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced in the Indian Parliament, has sparked significant controversy, particularly over five major proposed changes to the Waqf Act of 1995. These amendments aim to reform the management and regulation of Waqf properties—endowments made by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes—but have drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties, Muslim organizations, and community leaders. Below is an overview of these five contentious changes and the conflicts they have ignited, based on the current discourse as of April 2, 2025.

1. Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Governance
   The bill mandates the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, requiring at least two non-Muslim members in each body. It also allows for a non-Muslim Chief Executive Officer and permits the central government to nominate Members of Parliament to the Council without requiring them to be Muslim. Proponents argue this enhances diversity and administrative efficiency, emphasizing that non-Muslims would handle only administrative, not religious, duties. Critics, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and opposition MPs like Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM, contend that Waqf is a religious institution under Islamic law, and involving non-Muslims undermines its sanctity and autonomy. They see it as an overreach by the government into Muslim religious affairs, potentially violating constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion).
2. Shift of Dispute Resolution Authority to Government Officials
   Under the existing 1995 Act, Waqf Tribunals decide disputes over whether a property is Waqf or government-owned. The new bill transfers this authority to a senior state government official (initially proposed as the District Collector, now amended to a higher-ranking officer). The government justifies this by citing misuse of the current system, where Waqf Boards allegedly claim private or government properties without sufficient evidence. Opponents argue that a government officer is unlikely to rule against the state, risking bias in favor of government interests. This change is seen as eroding the judicial independence of Waqf Tribunals and threatening Muslim property rights, with critics alleging it facilitates government seizure of Waqf assets.
3. Modification of “Waqf by User” Doctrine
   The original bill sought to eliminate the “Waqf by user” concept, which recognizes properties as Waqf based on long-term religious or charitable use, even without formal documentation (e.g., mosques or graveyards). After pushback, the revised bill retains this status for properties registered before the law’s enactment, unless disputed or claimed as government property. The government argues this prevents fraudulent claims, but critics warn it jeopardizes countless undocumented Waqf properties, especially those managed informally by communities for generations. The ambiguity around “disputed” properties fuels fears of legal challenges and loss of historical endowments.
4. Mandatory Registration on a Central Portal
   The bill requires all Waqf properties to be registered on a central digital portal within six months of the law’s commencement, with unregistered properties losing legal recourse in disputes unless courts find “sufficient cause” for delay. The government touts this as a step toward transparency and reduced litigation, addressing issues like encroachment and poor record-keeping. However, opposition figures like Congress MP Imran Masood highlight the impracticality—pointing out that even after a decade, many properties remain unregistered due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. Critics argue this tight timeline, enforced by government officers, could disenfranchise smaller Waqf entities and enable property grabs if deadlines are missed.
5. Requirement of Five Years of Practicing Islam
   A new provision mandates that only Muslims who have practiced Islam for at least five years can dedicate property as Waqf. The government claims this ensures genuine intent, but opponents, including Muslim organizations, call it arbitrary and exclusionary, particularly for recent converts or those without formal proof of practice. This clause has sparked debate over its constitutional validity, with critics arguing it infringes on equality under Article 14 and religious freedom under Article 25, questioning why such a restriction applies only to Waqf and not other religious endowments.

The Broader Conflict

The clash over these changes reflects a deeper divide. The ruling BJP-led NDA frames the bill as a modernization effort to improve Waqf administration, curb misuse, and empower marginalized Muslims, including women and backward classes. Union Minister Amit Shah has dismissed opposition claims of religious interference as “vote-bank politics,” asserting that the amendments ensure transparency and accountability. Conversely, the opposition INDIA bloc, alongside groups like AIMPLB and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, views it as an assault on Muslim autonomy and constitutional rights, accusing the government of targeting Waqf properties—estimated at 8.7 lakh assets spanning 9.4 lakh acres—for political gain or reappropriation. Protests, boycotts, and heated parliamentary debates underscore this polarization, with the bill’s passage in the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2025, intensifying the standoff as it heads to the Rajya Sabha.