The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 has emerged as one of the most hotly debated topics in the Indian Parliament. The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha, witnessed a marathon discussion that lasted nearly 12 hours before being passed in the early hours of Thursday with a majority of 288 votes against 232.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s Strong Defense
During the heated debate, Union Home Minister Amit Shah launched a scathing attack on the previous UPA government, particularly targeting the amendments made in 2013. He accused the Congress-led regime of introducing politically motivated changes to Waqf laws in a rushed manner just before the 2014 elections. Shah highlighted the transfer of 123 VVIP properties in Delhi’s Lutyens zone to Waqf authorities, calling it an ill-conceived decision that necessitated the current amendment.
Shah defended the new Bill, emphasizing that it aims to enhance accountability and curb financial mismanagement within the Waqf Board. He argued that the amendments would not have been required had the previous government acted responsibly.
Kiren Rijiju’s Clarification on Allegations
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju also stepped in to defend the government against allegations that the Bill targets the Muslim community. Responding to criticisms, he stated:
“You repeatedly claim our government acts against Muslims, yet it is you who perpetuated fragmentation by establishing separate boards for Sunni, Shia, and other sects. We proposed a unified board to foster unity.”
Rijiju further addressed concerns regarding non-Muslim involvement in Waqf affairs, asserting that the Bill does not interfere with religious matters but rather ensures legal accountability and transparency. He highlighted that land disputes now require legal documentation, transcending religious affiliations.
Opposition’s Fierce Criticism
Despite the government’s defense, opposition leaders fiercely opposed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi went as far as tearing a copy of the Bill in protest. Owaisi labeled the legislation an “insult to Muslims”, questioning why similar measures were not applied to Hindu religious trusts. In response, Rijiju argued that legal provisions already exist for Hindu institutions, whereas the Waqf law needed stricter regulations to prevent misuse.
Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi condemned the Bill, calling it an attack on Parliament and the Constitution. He alleged that the government had four hidden motives behind the Bill, all of which, he claimed, targeted the Muslim community.
Similarly, Samajwadi Party President Akhilesh Yadav criticized the Bill’s wording, questioning the intent behind terms like “Unified Waqf Management” and suggesting that its true purpose remained unclear.
JPC Chairman Jagdambika Pal’s Statement
Jagdambika Pal, Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, assured that the Bill’s passage would benefit the Muslim community. He dismissed opposition claims that the legislation was being used as an election strategy, stating:
“We have worked for six months, day and night, to present an elaborate report on this Bill. Despite baseless allegations, the Bill will be passed today.”
Religious Leaders’ Perspectives on the Waqf Bill
Amid concerns over the Bill, Syed Naseruddin Chishty, Chairman of the All India Sufi Sajjadanashin Council, rejected claims that religious properties would be confiscated. He clarified that the Bill merely introduces stricter regulations to prevent the misuse of Waqf properties.
However, all major political parties from Jammu and Kashmir, except the BJP, opposed the Bill. Former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah called it “disempowering for Muslims”, reiterating his party’s strong disapproval.
Congress Vows to Overturn the Bill in 2029
Senior Congress leader Rashid Alvi assured that once Congress regains power in 2029, it will reverse the amendments made by the current government. Similarly, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera described the Bill as both “anti-Muslim” and “anti-constitutional”, arguing that it violates the principles of equality, federalism, and minority rights laid out by B.R. Ambedkar.
Congress MP K.C. Venugopal also attacked the government, stating that the real purpose of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 is to divide the country on religious lines.
National Commission for Minorities Supports the Bill
In contrast to Congress’s stance, National Commission for Minorities (NCM) Chairman Iqbal Singh Lalpura extended his support to the Bill. He emphasized that the legislation serves the larger interests of the community and dismissed fears of mass dispossession of Waqf properties.
Key Features of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025
1.Enhanced Transparency: The Bill introduces stricter oversight to prevent financial mismanagement within Waqf Boards.
2. Legal Documentation for Land Claims: Individuals claiming Waqf land must now provide legal proof, ensuring rightful ownership.
3. Unified Waqf Management: The government proposes a single board for better administration, rather than separate Sunni and Shia boards.
4. Revised Role of District Collectors: District collectors will play a more active role in maintaining records and preventing fraud.
5. Regulations to Prevent Misuse: The Bill ensures that Waqf properties are not illegally transferred or misused.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 remains one of the most contentious legislations in recent times. While the BJP government defends it as a measure to bring transparency and accountability, the opposition perceives it as an attack on Muslim religious institutions.
With sharp criticism from the Congress, AIMIM, and regional parties, the Bill’s implementation could face legal challenges and further political resistance. However, with support from the National Commission for Minorities and certain religious leaders, the government maintains that the Bill serves the greater national interest.
As debates continue, the long-term impact of this legislation on Waqf properties, religious communities, and political dynamics remains to be seen. Whether it will be upheld, amended, or repealed in the future will depend on the evolving political landscape in India.
