Midnight Mandate: Lok Sabha Passes Waqf Bill Amid Uproar, Uncertainty Looms in Rajya Sabha
As the Bill moves to the Rajya Sabha, it represents more than just a legislative test—it is a litmus test for India’s commitment to inclusive governance, constitutional federalism.
Waqf Bill Passed in Lok Sabha Amid Uproar
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024—now retitled—rather rebranded— the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Bill—was passed in the Lok Sabha shortly after midnight today ( i.e. on 3 April 2025), following a dramatic 12-hour marathon debate. With 288 votes in favour (from the NDA alliance) and 232 against (from the INDIA bloc), the Bill now advances to the Rajya Sabha, where the numbers promise a more tightly contested battle. The government's objective is clear: to ensure the Bill clears Parliament before the conclusion of the current session.
The legislation, which proposes more than 40 amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995, seeks to fundamentally overhaul the governance of Waqf properties across India. While the government has presented the reforms as essential for bringing transparency, curbing mismanagement, and tackling illegal encroachments, the Bill has provoked intense controversy. It is widely seen by the Sunni Muslim community as a direct governmental intrusion into religious charities created by Muslims—charitable endowments in the form of movable and immovable properties dedicated to Allah and intended for the welfare of the poor and deserving within the community.
Though few among both Muslims and non-Muslims have been fully aware of or vocal about it, the legislation has long contained provisions that many experts consider near draconian. Existing law permits properties with even a nebulous or tenuous Muslim association—such as a graveyard owned, maintained, and operated by a municipal body—to be summarily declared and notified as Waqf property. These declarations often occur through one-sided procedures, offering minimal notice, negligible scrutiny, and barely any meaningful legal remedy to those affected.
As a result, the Bill has become one of the most contentious pieces of legislation introduced by the Modi government. For some, it symbolises a long-overdue push towards reform and efficiency, and a hallmark of “secular” India; for others, it represents a dangerous precedent of centralised control and a weakening of minority rights under the guise of modernisation.
High Stakes and Heated Debates
Originally introduced in the Monsoon Session and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) during the Winter Session, the Bill has generated intense parliamentary and public debate. The amendments aim to enforce transparency, ensure gender equity in inheritance, and reclaim misclassified properties—but critics allege they undermine the constitutional and religious rights of India’s Muslim community.
A wide spectrum of Muslim organisations and leaders have condemned the Bill as a direct assault on minority rights under Articles 25 to 30. Conversely, pro-government media and supporters hail it as a long-overdue reform of an anachronistic framework that allowed undue privilege and encroachment—often at the cost of non-Muslim property holders and the State itself.
JDU and TDP: The Quiet Power Brokers
Two key NDA allies—Janata Dal (United) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP)—exercised significant influence in refining the final draft of the Bill:
JDU secured the removal of retrospective application for the controversial ‘Waqf by user’ clause, thereby shielding undocumented historical properties in Bihar from reclassification.
TDP pushed for state-level autonomy in determining non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards and earmarked 30% of underutilised Waqf assets (estimated at ₹1.2 lakh crore) for education and housing of marginalised Muslims.
Their support proved decisive in neutralising resistance from regional parties such as BJD and Shiv Sena (UBT), allowing the BJP to push through the legislation.
Crucial Provisions: Centralisation or Clean-Up?
1. District Collector’s Dominant Role
Under the proposed amendments, the role of the Survey Commissioner has been replaced by the District Collector, who will now be responsible for conducting property surveys and adjudicating disputes involving government land. The Collector’s decisions will be binding unless challenged in the High Courts.
Critics contend that this change significantly centralises authority in the hands of the district administration, effectively sidelining state Waqf Boards and thereby undermining the federal balance envisioned in the Constitution. However, in the absence of the final version of the adopted Bill being publicly available, it remains unclear—despite some media reports—whether the role of the Collector may ultimately be assigned to a more senior state government official, such as the Divisional Commissioner or an equivalent authority.
2. Digital Transparency and Mandatory Registration
Waqfs must be registered on the Waqf Parivartan Portal within six months. Failure to comply could lead to deregistration, a move intended to prevent fraudulent claims and ensure real-time tracking.
3. Gender Equity and Waqf-alal-Aulad Reform
Waqf family trusts must now guarantee inheritance rights for female heirs, with residual income post-lineage expiry redirected to community welfare.
4. Waqf by User Clause: Now Prospective Only
The amended clause will only apply to future claims, safeguarding undocumented legacy properties from reclassification or legal challenges.
Opposition’s Furious Pushback
The INDIA bloc united in resistance, describing the Bill as anti-minority, unconstitutional, and a threat to secularism:
Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi dubbed it a “4D assault”: diluting the Constitution, defaming minorities, disenfranchising communities, and dividing society.
Shiromani Akali Dal MP Harsimrat Kaur Badal called the BJP the “real Tukde-Tukde gang,” accusing it of fracturing India’s federal fabric.
Leaders from DMK, RJD, and TMC decried what they termed arbitrary central overreach, alleging that the Centre was muscling into matters reserved for states under the Constitution.
Amit Shah’s Counteroffensive: Reform, Not Religion
In a high-voltage speech, Union Home Minister Amit Shah countered the opposition’s narrative, positioning the Bill as a crackdown on encroachments and land mafias:
He cited the UPA’s 2013 amendments, alleging that 123 prime properties in Delhi were wrongly transferred to Waqf Boards.
Shah revealed examples like a five-star hotel in Karnataka leased for just ₹12,000/month, to underscore how Waqf assets had been misused.
Assuring the Muslim community, Shah emphasised that non-Muslims would not administer religious sites, aiming to dispel communal apprehensions.
“This Bill isn’t against Muslims—it’s against those who looted Waqf assets for decades,” Shah declared, warning encroachers of imminent legal action.
Symbolism and Spectacle: Owaisi Tears the Bill
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi staged the night’s most symbolic protest—tearing a copy of the Bill while invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s defiance of unjust laws. He alleged that the legislation violates Articles 14, 25, and 26, enabling state interference in Muslim religious affairs and diluting minority autonomy.
BJP MPs dismissed the act as theatrical, while JPC Chair Jagdambika Pal defended the Bill’s constitutionality and procedural propriety.
Rajya Sabha Showdown: What Lies Ahead
The Bill now faces a critical test in the Rajya Sabha, where the NDA holds 109 seats to the opposition’s 102. Several scenarios are in play:
The INDIA bloc is preparing a motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, seeking wider deliberation.
The BJD and unaffiliated MPs are being courted by the BJP, with clarifications being offered on state autonomy provisions.
The outcome in the Upper House will likely shape both the legal trajectory and the public perception of this landmark legislation.
Beyond Waqf: Modern Muslim Philanthropy in India
While the waqf system remains an important part of Muslim charitable tradition, it is by no means the only path available for contemporary philanthropy. In fact, many prominent Muslim philanthropists in India have embraced more flexible, transparent, and inclusive structures to advance their social missions. From the use of public trusts and Section 8 companies to leveraging corporate social responsibility (CSR), these alternatives offer greater operational freedom and adaptability—qualities that are often constrained under the state-administered waqf framework.
Bollywood icon Shah Rukh Khan, for instance, established the Meer Foundation as a Section 25 company (now Section 8) to support acid attack survivors and other vulnerable groups, regardless of religious affiliation. Similarly, Azim Premji, one of the world’s leading philanthropists, has channelled billions into the Azim Premji Foundation, structured as a Section 25 company focused on education reform across India. Industrialist Yusuff Ali of the LuLu Group has also adopted a non-waqf model, supporting disaster relief and community development through his charitable wing, the Y Foundation. Even healthcare magnate Khwaja Abdul Hamied, founder of Cipla, has utilised CSR obligations to promote healthcare access and social equity without limiting beneficiaries to any one faith.
These examples illustrate that Muslim philanthropy today is not bound by the waqf alone. On the contrary, the trend among educated, affluent, and socially conscious Muslims is to adopt modern philanthropic models that prioritise efficiency, inclusivity, and impact. The passage of the UMEED Bill, therefore, should not be interpreted as an attack on Muslim charity as a whole. Rather, it offers an opportunity to reform and professionalise the waqf system so it can co-exist with, and even complement, the newer forms of giving that are already reshaping Muslim philanthropy in India.
Looking Ahead: Promise of Reform or Prelude to Polarisation?
The UMEED Bill marks a significant turning point in the governance of India’s 8 lakh-plus Waqf properties. Supporters argue it empowers marginalised Muslims through accountability, transparency, and legal safeguards. Opponents view it as a dangerous centralisation effort, threatening to erode constitutional protections and religious freedoms.
As the Bill moves to the Rajya Sabha, it represents more than just a legislative test—it is a litmus test for India’s commitment to inclusive governance, constitutional federalism, and the balance between reform and representation.
Next Steps: Rajya Sabha debate expected by 4 April. If passed, the opposition may seek judicial review before the Supreme Court.