Proving many of their critics wrong, the Narendra Modi government has successfully ushered in the Waqf Amendment Act of 2025. While some speculated that the bill’s detour to the Joint Parliamentary Committee was a subtle way to shelve it, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has secured a historic victory in Parliament.
How does one quantify this success, however? It would not be an exaggeration to state that the Act impacts far more people and institutions than the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, the Citizenship Amendment Act, and several other reforms introduced over the past decade.
Unfortunately, the Waqf ecosystem, as amended in the final months of the Congress government in 2013, created an underlying legal problem that challenged the authority and supremacy of the state itself. The crafty legal framework enabled an acquisition spree for the Waqf, which explains the increase in its landholdings by 21 lakh acres since 2013. Because it was an underlying issue, it never became a mainstream discussion, and even now, most people remain oblivious to the impact of the amendments introduced in the 2025 Act.
First, the new amendments negate the Waqf’s impact on non-Muslims. In 2013, the definition of those who could make a dedication to the Waqf was intentionally changed to “any person,” thereby encompassing the entire population of over 140 crore people. The 2025 amendment rectifies this. Now, anyone making a dedication, apart from being the rightful owner of the property, must also have been professing Islam for at least five years. The Waqf Board is no longer a nightmare for non-Muslims.
However, the million-dollar question remains: why were non-Muslims, who had nothing to do with the Waqf or its dedications in the first place, included in the law? This is where the contentious Section 40 comes into play. Section 40 of the 1995 Waqf Act empowered the Waqf to investigate any property they believed belonged to them. The definition of “belief” was shrouded in ambiguity, giving the Waqf enough power to claim any property as its own. Section 40 enabled them to claim villages, government buildings, and even prime properties in metropolitan areas. The 2025 amendments omit Section 40 altogether, putting an end to the tyrannical ambiguity in Waqf acquisitions.
Another aspect significantly diluted by the new amendments is the concept of “Waqf by User.” The “Waqf by User” provision was given legal acceptance in the 1954 Act. Put simply, “Waqf by User” allowed the Waqf to claim any land or property they believed was dedicated for religious or charitable purposes at some point in history, without requiring any deed or documentation. Thus, without paperwork and merely through verbal dedication, the Waqf Board could claim a property as its own under the guise of “Waqf by User.”
The 2025 amendment addresses this issue. For starters, no government properties, even retrospectively, can be claimed by the Waqf. For properties already claimed without paperwork, the time for accountability has arrived. As per one of the clauses in the 2025 amendments, only properties “registered” before or on the date of the Act’s commencement will be accepted as “Waqf by User” properties. Given that of the 37 lakh acres of Waqf land, 22 lakh acres fall under “Waqf by User”—almost 45 per cent of Waqf properties—this registration requirement, with proper paperwork, remains incomplete for many.
In the 2013 amendments, the definition of “encroacher” was expanded to include the government. Consequently, governments were expected to yield to the Waqf Boards whenever asked. The three lifelines awarded to the Waqf (more on that later) further strengthened its position, making the state inferior to the Waqf Boards. The 2025 amendments exclude government properties from Waqf claims altogether and expand the definition of government property to include those owned, managed, and controlled by state governments as well.
The Waqf ecosystem previously benefited from three lifelines awarded under earlier Congress governments. Section 104B made the Waqf supersede the government. Given the definition of encroachers, which included the government, Section 104B mandated that the government return Waqf properties to the board within six months when claimed. Section 104 has been entirely omitted in the new amendments.
Section 107 previously barred the applicability of the Limitation Act of 1963. While every citizen and institution in the country had the right to file a recovery lawsuit within 12 years of an encroachment, the Waqf faced no such restriction. Thus, Waqf Boards could claim any private or government property even after 50 or 100 years. The 2025 amendments apply the Limitation Act of 1963 to the Waqf Act, rectifying this imbalance.
Section 108A, amended in 2013, further empowered the Waqf by giving it an overriding effect over conflicting laws. Therefore, if a lawsuit involving a property claimed by both the Waqf and a private citizen or government institution reached the High Court, the Waqf Act would supersede any laws related to property transfers, land acquisitions, and similar matters. Section 108 also gave the Waqf the first right to evacuee properties—those belonging to individuals who migrated to Pakistan in 1947. The 2025 amendments eliminate Section 108.
Not only have the three lifelines been removed, but the finality of Waqf tribunals is also now a thing of the past. The 2025 amendments, in at least seven different sections, negate the finality of these tribunals altogether. This change empowers citizens to approach the courts with stronger cases, as they no longer need to worry about Sections 104, 107, or 108 or any of their clauses.
The Waqf Amendment Act of 2025 must be studied in its entirety. Beyond the noise and controversy, this is not about religion but about a legal framework that was previously skewed in favour of one side. It’s not about alienating anyone but about undoing the historical wrongs of past governments. Contrary to what many believe, the government is not aiming to dismantle the Waqf or the places of worship belonging to one religious community; rather, it seeks to ensure that the laws provide a level playing field for all. This is not about religion but about regulating real estate—a change that many Muslims are also welcoming.
(Tushar Gupta is a Delhi based senior journalist and political analyst)
