ABSTRACT
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, arrives at a critical juncture as India actively engages in discussions surrounding the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Religious endowments, particularly Islamic waqfs, are being reassessed within a broader legal framework aimed at uniformity and accountability. This paper critically examines the implications of the 2025 amendment in light of the proposed UCC, investigating its legal, social, and political impacts. The analysis underscores the balancing act between secular governance and religious autonomy, questioning whether the amendment ensures transparency or erodes community rights. It aims to explore whether the new legislation fosters inclusivity or exacerbates religious marginalization, and how it fits into the larger constitutional and secular framework of India. The amendment also calls for reflection on India’s commitment to pluralism and whether uniformity should come at the cost of religious diversity.
KEYWORDS: Waqf, Uniform Civil Code, Religious Endowments, Amendment Bill 2025, Secularism, Legal Reform
INTRODUCTION
Religious endowments in India hold immense socio-economic and cultural significance. Among these, the waqf system in Islam occupies a unique place, functioning as both a spiritual and charitable institution. Historically governed by the Waqf Act, 1995, the system has undergone periodic legislative changes, often in response to mismanagement and corruption. The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Bill marks another pivotal shift, coinciding with increasing momentum for the implementation of the UCC. The intersection of religious laws with a proposed uniform framework raises complex constitutional questions, particularly about freedom of religion under Article 25 and the principle of equality under Article 14.
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC), as enshrined in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, envisions a common set of laws governing personal matters for all citizens irrespective of religion. The debate around UCC is complex and sensitive, involving questions about religious freedom, secularism, and minority rights. Against this backdrop, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks to reform the legal framework governing waqf properties by enhancing transparency, streamlining administration, and tightening governmental oversight.
This research aims to critically analyse the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, within the broader discourse on UCC, exploring its potential legal and social ramifications. The study focuses on how the amendment aligns with constitutional principles, impacts the autonomy of religious communities, and fits into the secular governance framework of India. By investigating these dimensions, the paper hopes to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue on religious endowment reforms.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study employs a doctrinal approach, examining statutes, constitutional provisions, case law, and academic commentary. There is a comparative examination of endowment systems among other religious communities to determine parity under the envisioned UCC scheme. Parliamentary debates, media reports, and policy documents are also consulted to determine the socio-political context of the bill.
Supporting the doctrinal analysis, comparative legal approach is used to frame an understanding of how other secular democracies deal with religious endowments, thus placing India’s practice in a global context. Secondary materials like policy briefs, expert analysis, and media reports have also been considered in order to evaluate socio-political sentiments regarding the amendment.
The study also includes normative analysis, analyzing the constitutional and ethical implications of state intervention in religion. To ground this, Articles 14, 15, 25-28 of the Indian Constitution are critically examined to evaluate the proportion between equality, non-discrimination, and religious liberty.
The paper also includes a historical overview to follow the development of waqf laws in India, tracing how colonial and post-colonial law has influenced existing regulatory frameworks. This multi-faced methodology guarantees effective comprehension of the matter from legal, historical, and socio-political vantage points.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Existing scholarship on waqf administration points to systemic challenges, including lack of transparency, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and legal ambiguities. Tahir Mahmood’s works on Muslim law reform stress the need for safeguarding minority rights while promoting administrative efficiency. Faizan Mustafa (2012) discusses the tensions inherent in the Uniform Civil Code debate, highlighting minority apprehensions about losing religious identity.
Recent policy research, such as the Centre for Policy Research’s 2024 brief on waqf governance, recommends digitization and increased community participation to reduce corruption. Judicial pronouncements, notably the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ishaq v. State of UP (2022), emphasize the importance of protecting religious endowments from illegal encroachments while respecting constitutional freedoms.
Comparative studies, like A. Rahman’s analysis of religious endowment laws in South Africa and Malaysia (2020), provide useful insights into balancing state oversight with religious autonomy. However, most literature underscores the delicate nature of reforming waqfs without triggering socio-political backlash, a cautionary note that underpins the present analysis.
METHOD
The paper evaluates the 2025 Amendment based on four primary dimensions:
1. Legal Provisions: The Bill introduces stricter audit mechanisms, expands state control over waqf boards, and empowers district magistrates to remove encroachments without judicial intervention. These provisions are examined for their constitutionality and practical implications.
2. UCC Interface: The alignment of waqf regulation with a broader UCC agenda raises concerns about selective scrutiny. While Hindu religious endowments remain under respective state laws, the uniform application appears uneven.
3. Community Response: The amendment has sparked concern among Muslim leaders and scholars, who view it as an infringement on religious freedom. This section evaluates the arguments presented in public forums and minority commissions.
4. Comparative Jurisprudence: A look at how other pluralistic democracies like Malaysia and South Africa regulate religious trusts informs the discussion on best practices.
SUGGESTIONS
In light of the apprehensions expressed against the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, it is imperative that any process of reform prioritizes constitutional values and adheres to the equilibrium between the oversight of the state and religious freedom. The following proposals are intended to enhance the administration of waqf properties while safeguarding the rights of the community and ensuring even-handed application of the principles of law to all religious endowments.
1. Establishment of an Independent Regulatory Body
There is a need for an autonomous body to govern waqf properties, which is increasingly necessary. Waqf boards are currently answerable directly to state governments, and this has resulted in claims of political interference and bureaucratic inefficiency. There could be a central or state-level autonomous regulating authority like other statutory authorities such as the Election Commission or the National Green Tribunal to regulate waqf administration. Such a body must be constituted by retired judges, experts in finance, and Muslim scholars so that it is transparent, law-compliant, and independent.
The Supreme Court in All India Imam Organisation v. Union of India appreciated the necessity of autonomous religious governance and fair governance on the one hand and public accountability on the other hand. The waqf system would gain people’s trust if an independent regulator was instituted, balancing these goals on both sides.
2. Digitization and Public Accessibility of Waqf Records
Waqf properties tend to get lost or utilized improperly because of inadequate documentation and public access to records. An all-India digitization program needs to be initiated to survey all waqf lands with the help of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and connect them with land revenue departments. It can be implemented in coordination with the Ministry of Minority Affairs and state governments.
According to the 2022 report of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, more than 50 percent of waqf properties are encroached or in dispute. The digitization of records and the development of a public portal with centrally hosted information will decrease fraudulent practices, enhance transparency, and resolve disputes more effectively.
Comparable practices elsewhere in Malaysia have indicated that e-governance and electronic mapping of religious assets enhance accountability. Malaysia’s federal agency JAWHAR (Jabatan Wakaf, Zakat dan Haji) employs online tools to deal with religious trusts in an efficient manner and provides a possible example for India to emulate.
3. Community Representation and Local Participation
Waqf boards must be composed of elected and nominated members of the local Muslim community. The scholars, legal experts, women, and waqf service beneficiaries must be included. The inclusion of the community in decision-making will make the religious and charitable nature of waqf secure and enhance internal accountability.
Such incorporation is in consonance with Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which ensures religious denominations the right to deal with their affairs in matters of religion. Any modification to waqf legislation should enhance rather than dilute this proposition.
Also, participatory governance prevents the community from being alienated. The decision to lease out, redevelop, or put waqf land to commercial use should be made only after consulting stakeholders and following transparent procedures.
4. Uniform Reform Across All Religious Endowments
A persistent criticism of the 2025 amendment is that it selectively targets only Muslim religious endowments while excluding comparable institutions of other religions. For example, Hindu religious and charitable endowments are controlled by state laws such as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and comparable laws in other states. These laws are dissimilar and frequently are not brought under the same level of scrutiny.
If the intention is towards working on a Uniform Civil Code, reform must be seen to extend evenly to all religious trusts and endowments. Having a national framework or guideline for the management of religious property that applies to Hindu, Christian, Sikh, and other religious institutions would see equal treatment and preserve the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14.
An Interfaith Commission on Religious Endowments may be established to investigate shared concerns and advise on best practices that can be uniformly applied across all faiths.
5. Restoration of Judicial Safeguards and Legal Remedies
Part of the contentious provisions in the amendment is the enabling clause that grants district magistrates the authority to remove encroachments from waqf properties without court intervention. Though the aim could be to hasten the process and reclaim properties, the omission of judicial sanction is worrying as it leaves the door open for abuse of power and infringement on due process.
There is a need to reinstate the right of judicial review in such cases. Affected parties need to be heard as enshrined under the doctrine of natural justice. There should be a definite process of appeal through civil courts or special tribunals constituted for waqf disputes.
In Basil George Chandy v. State of Kerala, the court underlined the significance of procedural fairness in cases involving public and religious trusts. Thus, any governmental action pertaining to waqf land must be accompanied by due notice, record, and the availability of legal remedy.
Furthermore, there must be a system of legal assistance to help economically weaker segments of the Muslim population to guard their rights in waqf-related disputes. Waqf boards can have a public defender cell or work with legal service authorities to extend such assistance.
These reforms need to be inspired by the constitutional ideals of equality, secularism, and freedom of religion. They should not be inspired by political opportunism or cultural majoritarianism. The popularity of the amendment, and its acceptability within India’s plural communities, will depend on whether the amendment is seen as an earnest attempt to enhance good governance or as a serious attempt to restrict religious autonomy.
CONCLUSION
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is at the intersection of constitutional balance, religious autonomy, and legal reform. It represents India’s longstanding effort to balance plural religious traditions in a contemporary legal structure. Although the avowed purpose of the amendment—to check corruption, rationalize administration, and enhance transparency in waqf institutions—is laudable, the style and context in which such reforms are proposed generate more profound questions regarding equity, secularism, and minority rights.
The crucial issue is the perception and implementation of the bill as disproportionately affecting Islamic trusts, particularly when equivalent transparency and accountability legislation is not concurrently introduced for Hindu, Christian, or other religious trusts. The discriminatory application goes against the doctrine of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution and degrades the intent of the Uniform Civil Code, which by definition must apply uniformly to all communities. If the objective is to bring about true uniformity in civil laws, then reforms should cover all religious endowments equally, without seeming to strive to ostracize one community.
Also, the provision of administrative clearance of encroachments without resort to judicial review is a worrisome precedent. Skipping judicial review in the name of efficiency evokes constitutional concerns. India’s legal system is based on checks and balances, and any movement away from such a system—particularly one relating to religious property—risks state encroachment and the undermining of individual rights. Executive abuse under such provisions is likely and could disproportionately harm marginalized Muslim communities who depend on waqf properties for religious, educational, and social services.
In addition, the integration of non-Muslim members onto waqf boards—albeit framed as a move towards secular control—has the potential to be viewed as intrusive unless extended to other religious endowment boards as well. There is a need to make a distinction between reforms to promote inclusivity and those that can be interpreted as eroding religious self-determination. In a plural and multicultural society such as India, religious communities should be allowed the freedom to govern their institutions independently, under legal and financial liability but not interference.
The scheduling of the amendment, within the larger context of the UCC debate, also heightens apprehensions of cultural assimilation within a homogenizing legal framework. The UCC, even as a constitutional obligation as a directive principle, cannot be used to bulldoze minority identities in the interest of uniformity. A fair UCC can only be the product of consensus-building, respectful debate, and fair legal reform across all communities—and not by thrusting unilateral changes on one community.
This requires a more consultative and inclusive method of legal reform. The government needs to consult religious leaders, legal academics, civil society groups, and concerned communities prior to passing laws affecting religious practice. This would not only foster trust, but also ensure that reforms are culturally and historically sensitive. This model of lawmaking through participation is essential in a democracy as heterogeneous and multifaceted as India.
Kumari Samridhi Pandey
Maharishi Markandeshwar deemed to be University