The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, passed by the Indian Parliament in April 2025, has sparked significant debate. While it aims to reform the management of Waqf properties, critics have raised several concerns about its provisions. Below are some of the key cons associated with the bill, based on widely discussed critiques:
1. **Erosion of Religious Autonomy**:
One major criticism is that the bill undermines the religious autonomy of the Muslim community by allowing non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. Critics argue this violates Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees religious communities the right to manage their own affairs. They contend that involving non-Muslims in what is fundamentally a Muslim religious institution secularizes and interferes with a faith-based practice.
2. **Increased Government Control**:
The bill shifts significant authority to government officials, such as replacing the Survey Commissioner with the District Collector (or higher-ranking officers) to investigate and determine Waqf property status. Opponents see this as bureaucratic overreach, reducing the Waqf Boards’ independence and centralizing power with the state, which could lead to delays, mismanagement, or bias in property disputes.
3. **Potential Threat to Property Rights**:
Provisions allowing government property identified as Waqf to cease being recognized as such, and requiring registration of all Waqf properties within six months, have raised alarms. Critics argue this could lead to the loss of long-standing Waqf properties, especially those without formal documentation or established through customary use (“Waqf by user”), potentially displacing communities reliant on these assets.
4. **Perceived Discrimination and Marginalization**:
Some opposition voices, including political leaders and Muslim organizations, claim the bill targets the Muslim community, accusing it of being part of a broader agenda to marginalize them. The requirement that only individuals practicing Islam for at least five years can create a Waqf has been criticized as arbitrary and exclusionary, potentially disenfranchising certain Muslims, such as recent converts.
5. **Risk of Increased Litigation**:
By removing the finality of Waqf Tribunal decisions and allowing appeals to the High Court, the bill could flood the judicial system with cases. Critics argue this undermines the efficiency of dispute resolution, contradicting the bill’s stated goal of streamlining management, and may prolong legal battles over property ownership.
6. **Lack of Adequate Community Consultation**:
The legislative process has been faulted for insufficient engagement with Muslim stakeholders. Critics assert that the bill was rushed through without broad consensus, raising questions about its legitimacy and whether it truly addresses the community’s needs or concerns.
7. **Conflict with Constitutional Principles**:
the bill infringes on constitutional rights beyond religious freedom, including equality under Article 14 and protection of minority rights under Article 29. They view the inclusion of non-Muslims and the enhanced role of state officials as discriminatory, contrasting it with the management of other religious endowments (e.g., Hindu temples), where similar provisions do not exist.
These criticisms reflect a broader sentiment among detractors that, while the bill aims to address issues like corruption and mismanagement in Waqf administration, it risks overstepping into sensitive religious and cultural domains, potentially exacerbating communal tensions rather than resolving administrative inefficiencies. Supporters, however, maintain that these changes are necessary for transparency and accountability, highlighting a deep divide in perspectives on the legislation.