Abstract:

This paper explores the paradox of secularism in India by looking at how the law treats Muslim Waqf institutions and Hindu temples. The Constitution promises equal respect for all religions, but in reality, the rules that govern different faiths are far from equal. Waqf properties, managed through independent boards, enjoy a level of autonomy, whereas Hindu temples continue to be tightly controlled by state governments. 

The research traces the historical journey of the Waqf system, beginning with its introduction in medieval India, its recognition under colonial laws, and its consolidation through the Waqf Acts of 1954 and 1955. Particular attention is given to the recent UMEED (Waqf Amendment Act, 2025), which has introduced important reforms to make the Waqf system more transparent and accountable by removing “Waqf by User” and allowing appeals to higher courts.

However, this progress also highlights a deeper concern: while Waqf institutions have moved towards greater independence, Hindu temple administration remains under political and bureaucratic influence. This imbalance raises an important question: Are we truly living up to the secular promise of fairness and equality? 

By comparing both systems side by side, the paper suggests that India needs a more balanced and uniform policy for religious institutions, one that respects faith, promotes transparency, and ensures that no community feels unfairly treated. Only then can Secularity become a lived reality that upholds equality, protects diversity, and reinforces the trust of every community in the democratic framework.

Keywords:

Secularism in India, Waqf Act, Temple Management, Religious Autonomy, State Control of Religious Institutions, Religious Endowments, UMEED Act, Comparative Religious Institutional Law, Judicial Interpretation of Secularism, Equality before Law, Freedom of Religion.

Research Methodology: 

The research follows a doctrinal and comparative legal analysis approach. Both primary and secondary sources have been used. Primary sources include the Indian Constitution (Articles 14, 25–28), statutory laws such as the Waqf Acts of 1954, 1995, and 2025, and the Hindu Religious Endowments Acts of various states, along with landmark judicial decisions like the Shirur Mutt Case (1954) and Sri Venkataramana Devaru (1958). Secondary sources form a major part of this study and include academic books, online journals, research papers, and committee reports such as the Sachar Committee Report, 2006. In addition, contemporary insights from articles, policy think-tanks, opinion pieces, and explanatory videos have been referred to for understanding the socio-political impact.

The methodology follows a comparative approach, where the governance of Waqf institutions is studied alongside the state’s regulation of Hindu temples. This contrast helps in assessing whether the current framework ensures equality or reflects differential treatment based on religion. By examining both historical developments and contemporary reforms, the study attempts to highlight the gaps, challenges, and possibilities of achieving a more uniform system of religious institutional governance in India.

This doctrinal and comparative approach has been chosen because this topic mainly deals with the Constitution, laws, and how courts have interpreted them. This approach helps in giving a clear and organized understanding of the subject. At the same time, using secondary resources like articles, reports, and recent discussions shows that the research does not remain only theoretical but connects with real and current challenges, ensuring both depth and practical relevance.

Introduction: The Beauty and Paradox of India’s Religious Diversity

India is home to a wide array of religions, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, and many more. They all exist with their own unique beliefs and practices. This is what truly awes us and makes us reflect on how remarkable India’s religious diversity is. This deep-rooted spiritual diversity is a great example of India’s cultural pluralism.

To protect, preserve, and uphold this spirit of coexistence, the Indian Constitution introduced the concept of Secularism through the 42^nd Amendment Act of 1976. It is to be noted that Secularism in India is a positive concept as it acknowledges all the religions without any favouritism. So, we can proudly say that our Nation respects all religions equally, ensuring no discrimination and promoting unity in diversity. Several other constitutional provisions reinforce a similar spirit, like Articles 14, 15, 25-28, etc.

However, the critical question arises: ‘Is Secularism truly being practiced effectively in today’s India? This is not to question the idea of secularism itself, but rather to reflect on whether our government and institutions are maintaining it fairly and consistently across all communities. What led me to think about this question is the way the Indian government handles or manages different religious institutions. Despite being secular, it seems like some communities are given more freedom and support, while others are under more scrutiny. This kind of pattern of selective preference raises serious concerns, making us wonder if secularism is really being followed properly, or if the idea is slowly being compromised by government bias.

Waqf Management Vs. Temple Management: A Closer Look

Now that we have explored India’s religious harmony and its secular foundation, let’s now look at how the government handles different religions’ places of worship.

There is a Waqf system in India, having a long history, that plays a critical role in the social and religious life of Muslims. Waqf is an Arabic word derived from “waqufa,” i.e., to stop or to tie up. In Islamic practice, it refers to donating a property (movable or immovable) for religious or charitable use, in the name of Allah. It is said that ‘Once a Waqf, always a Waqf’, meaning it cannot be altered, alienated, or revoked. The person who creates a Waqf is called a Waqif. And the person who manages and looks after them is known as the Mutawalli.

This idea is similar to the Islamic practice of Sadaqah Jariya, i.e., a continuous charity. To formalize a waqf, a Waqf deed (called Sakk-al-Waqf) is prepared, detailing everything about the donation. A person must be the rightful owner of the property to donate it as Waqf.

Talking about its historical roots, this system came to India with the invasion of the Mughal rulers. It began when rulers like Mohammad Ghori started attaching land to mosques and donating it for religious use. During the Colonial era, the British did not initially interfere with religious matters; however, when they noticed religious trusts generating large incomes, they tried to control them. And to fulfil the motive, despite resistance, they introduced some laws. The major change came with the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act of 1923, through which the British finally accepted the Waqf system and introduced the concept of registration of Waqf properties. In the post-independence era, the Waqf Act of 1954 was passed to bring all properties under one system. This law created Waqf Boards in every state and granted them executive and semi-judicial powers. It also included a controversial provision, specifically, Section 3(l)(1), which later became famous as ‘Waqf by User’. According to it, if a certain property has been used for an Islamic purpose over a long period of time, and the owner has no objection, then that property would be treated as a Waqf Property. And once claimed, the owner had to go to court to prove otherwise. Later, under this act, the Central Waqf Council was created to supervise the State Waqf Boards, since there was no central body.

However, the Waqf Act of 1954 faced many problems. Whenever the Waqf Board wanted to claim a property, they had to show proper documents. But most of the documents were very old, and many had been lost, damaged, or destroyed over time. This made it very difficult to prove ownership. Also, because of these ongoing claims on the properties, their market dropped sharply, resulting in huge financial losses to the boards. This led to an increased burden of cases on the civil courts. On top of that, some politicians and local goons began illegally taking over Waqf properties and even started occupying them through adverse possession. Some Mutawallis also gave these properties on lease without proper authority, which led to more misuse and loss. According to the Sachar Committee report in 2006, even though the Waqf Board was the third largest landowner in India, after the Army and Railways, it only made ₹163 crores, when it could have earned over ₹1200 crore

To address these issues, the Waqf Act of 1995 was introduced. This legislation came with a new concept of ‘Waqf Tribunals’. As per Section 85, these tribunals were given exclusive powers to handle matters related to Waqf, instead of civil courts. This made their decisions final and binding in some way. Another controversial provision in the 1995 Act was Section 40, which said that once the Waqf Board claims a property, the burden of proof lies on the owner to prove it is not Waqf. And till the dispute persists, the property was treated as a Waqf property.

Even after several amendments over the years, the Waqf system continued to struggle with issues of transparency and accountability. To address these concerns, further changes were introduced, such as the amendments of 2013 and 2025. However, what’s important to notice is how these laws and changes have gradually given the Muslim Waqf system a strong and independent framework to manage its religious and charitable affairs, without interference from courts or other authorities.

Unfortunately, it is hard to ignore the uncomfortable truth that such structured autonomy is not granted to any other religion in India. For example, when we look at Hindu temples, we see a completely different picture. Unlike the Waqf system, these temples are not managed by any independent community body; instead, they are directly controlled by the State Governments, subject to strict state regulation and scrutiny.

The Government’s control over Hindu temples dates back to the colonial era, when the British sought to take over temple administration and finances, under the pretext of stopping corruption and ensuring proper use of temple funds. They enacted various legislations to achieve their motive. One was the Madras Religious Endowments Act of 1863, which allowed the British Government to take over the management of the temples and appoint trustees to handle the workings. This practice of state intervention continued even after independence.

In the post-independence era, several state laws were passed that gave exclusive control to the government over Hindu temples. For instance, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, also called the HR&CE Act, empowered the government to

manage temple affairs, funds, and even the rituals. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987 and the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act of 1997 of Karnataka allowed the government oversight of temple administration.

Over these years, several important court rulings have come that are apparently against the government’s control over the Hindu temples and religious affairs. For example, the Shirur Mutt Case of 1954, the Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore case of 1958, the S.P. Mittal Vs. UOI case of 1983, the N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board case of 2002, etc. Yet, despite these, the government continues to hold control over the temples and keeps introducing laws and provisions for the same purpose.

How does this legal Inequality challenge Secularism?

According to the constitutional provisions, India should neither favour any religion nor interfere in religious matters unequally. But in reality, this balance is missing. In the context of Hindu temples, all the affairs, ranging from choosing people to manage the temple, deciding rituals and practices, are carried out by the state itself. Critics argue that this interference has led to increased corruption, poor upkeep, and neglect of the temples. Additionally, the funds and donations from the temples are used for non-religious or secular activities, which not only damages public trust but also limits the way the Hindu community treats their temple resources. Another big concern with the state control is the appointment of priests or caretakers for the temple by the government authorities. This creates a huge disconnect between the management and the spiritual expectations of the devotees. It is significant to understand that temples are not only public institutions but are sacred places, tied to the beliefs and faith of the people, so it is necessary to give them full autonomy. Only then can the true spirit of devotion be protected, and the faith and dignity of Hindu temples be preserved, just like the Muslims’ religious endowments.

UMEED: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025

The new Waqf Act of 2025, also known as UMEED (Unified Management, Efficiency, Empowerment, and Development Act), has introduced significant changes in the Muslim Waqf system. It is a progressive step towards ensuring greater transparency, balance, fairness, and

accountability in the management of Waqf properties. This act has taken a major step in removing the concept of ‘Waqf by User’, ensuring no arbitrary claims by the boards on the property. Additionally, it has abolished Section 40 of the previous act, ensuring no claims to be made without a fair process and proof. Another major change is the involvement of the District Collector in the process of registration and surveys of the Waqf properties. The registration is now to be done within six months of the commencement of the act. Moreover, two non-Muslims and two women representatives have been included in the boards, promoting inclusivity. Furthermore, the new act mandates that waqf claims must follow the limitation period of 12 years for private properties and 30 years for government properties. This ensures more clarity in the ownership of the property. Another major reform is that any dissatisfied party to the dispute can go for an appeal to the High Court within 90 days of the decision of the Waqf Tribunal. And, this is not all, but there are several other important changes introduced by the act, each aimed at reforming the waqf system.

Overall, these reforms are much-needed efforts to fix the old unfair practices. These ensure that the system is becoming more trustworthy and balanced by removing unchecked powers and adding proper rules. While they may not completely resolve the concerns, they might be seen as an initiative towards creating a more equal and secular system where no religious body is granted powers that promote discrimination.

However, the question still remains: Whether the Hindu temples continue to remain under heavy state control? Or should they be granted similar autonomy and legal safeguards as given to the Muslim Waqf?

Conclusion: A Step Closer to Equal Treatment:

As India continues to grow as a democracy, the real test of our secular spirit lies in how fairly we treat all religions in practice, not just in principle. The Indian Constitution visualizes secularism as a guarantee of equal respect for every faith; however, the current framework or system reveals clear differences in the way religious institutions are managed. The autonomy given to Muslim Waqf properties stands in sharp contrast to the tight state control over Hindu temples, and this imbalance has been at the heart of public debate for decades.

If India truly wishes to uphold the spirit of secularism and equality within the Nation, then the governance of all religious institutions must be treated with the same level of fairness. There should be a uniform policy to manage religious assets, one that is transparent, fair, and free from political influence. No doubt, bringing complete equality and uniformity in such sensitive matters is not something that can be done overnight. It will certainly take time, effort, and support. But it is not an impossible task to perform; our Nation can take small and consistent steps, ensuring that every religious group feels equally respected and equally accountable under the law, just like the recent amendment of 2025. The UMEED Act shows that positive reform is possible when there is a clear intention to reduce arbitrariness and build trust. It is high time that the exact attention must now be given to the concerns of Hindu temples, which remain under heavy state supervision despite repeated judicial recognition of their right to religious autonomy.  Freeing these temples from excessive governmental control, while ensuring accountability, would be a meaningful step toward true secular equality.

In the end, secularism in India should not remain only as words in the pages of the constitution, but it has to be practiced in real life. Because only a balanced approach is capable of reinforcing the true meaning of secularism in India.