New Delhi: After over 12 hours of debate, the Lok Sabha on Wednesday (April 2) passed the The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 with 288 votes in favour and 232 against the legislation. The day-long debate and division of votes that took place well after midnight comes as the bill moves to the Rajya Sabha on April 3 (today) and the government looks to clear the legislation in the budget session which will conclude on April 4.
During the debate, Union home minister Amit Shah sought to answer the concerns and questions raised by the opposition parties even though the bill was brought by minority affairs minister Kiren Rijiju. Shah accused the opposition of attempting to break the country by misleading Muslims about interference in religious matters to consolidate their vote bank and inclusion of non-Muslims. A united opposition accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union government of disempowering Muslims through the “unconstitutional” bill. The saffron party’s former ally in parliament, the YSRCP, also opposed the bill. The BJP’s two key allies – the JD(U) and the TDP – supported the bill, with the latter suggesting states be given flexibility to decide the composition of Waqf boards.
While explanations and clarifications on bills are usually offered by the minister concerned at the end of the debate, Shah’s 47-minute speech during the debate sought to shed light on aspects of the legislation that have been criticised by opposition parties, including the crucial inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies.
“No non-Islamic member will be a part of Waqf. Understand this clearly, neither the mutawalli nor the waqif will be a non-Muslim. There is no provision for the appointment of a non-Muslim to manage the religious institution, nor do we intend to introduce any such provision,” said Shah.
“Those who give lectures about equality and interference in religious affairs, nothing of this sort will happen. Until 1955 there was no Waqf council or Waqf board. The idea that this Act is aimed at interfering with the religious practices of our Muslim brothers and their donated property. This is being done to mislead and intimidate the minorities to consolidate vote banks. Non-Muslims can be included only in the Waqf board or in the council. What is their work? Their work is not religious matters but only to see whether the administration is being done in accordance with law or not.”
The Bill renames the 1995 Waqf Act – it is now the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act (UMEED) – and seeks to enhance the efficiency of the administration and management of Waqf properties. It has faced criticism for seeking to change the composition of the Central Waqf Council and the state Waqf boards. It seeks to ensure the representation of Muslim women and include non-Muslims. It also provides for the establishment of a separate ‘Board of Auqaf’ for Bohras and Aghakhanis.
The Bill crucially omits Section 40, which relates to the powers of Waqf boards to decide if a property is Waqf property.
Members of the Muslim Youth League stage a demonstration against the Waqf (Amendment) Bill after it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, in Kozhikode, Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Photo: PTI
“One more misconception is being spread, that this is coming with a retrospective effect. You should speak with responsibility when you speak in this House. The Bill clearly states that the law will come into effect after the notification is issued by the government after the Bill is passed. So, there is no retrospective effect. But Muslims are being intimidated,” said Shah.
With the sticking points of the legislation taken up by Shah, Rijiju in his reply said that he did not want to repeat the clarifications already provided by the home minister on the Bill introduced by him and instead focused on providing a political response.
“If you say that this bill is unconstitutional, then tell us why. I read the court’s observation that Waqf property management is legal. If this was unconstitutional, then why didn’t any court strike it down? We should not use the words ‘constitutional’ and ‘unconstitutional’ so lightly,” said.
Rijiju said that while the opposition has accused the government of making India unsafe for minorities, India is safer for minorities than any other country.
“Do they understand what that means? I belong to a minority, and I can say that minorities are safer in India than anywhere else,” said Rijiju.
Opposition says bill is unconstitutional
During the debate, the united opposition opposed the legislation calling it unconstitutional and an attempt to divide the country.
Congress MP and deputy leader in the house Gaurav Gogoi who opened the debate for the opposition said that the bill served four objectives –”to dilute the constitution, to defame the minority communities of India, to divide the Indian society, to disenfranchise the minority communities.”
Gogoi also accused the government of “misleading” people on wide consultations before bringing the Bill and said that the minority affairs committee had conducted five meetings in 2023 but the Waqf bill was not discussed in any of its suggestions.
Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi speaks in the Lok Sabha during the Budget session of Parliament, in New Delhi, Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Photo: PTI.
“I request the minister to place the minutes of these meetings. This Bill was not discussed or mentioned in a single meeting. I want to ask, if till November 2023 the ministry did not even think of a new bill, then did the ministry make this Bill, or some other department? Where did this Bill come from?” he said, as opposition members were heard saying “Nagpur” referring to the RSS’s headquarters.
Gogoi said that while the Bill seeks to ensure women’s representation, the 1995 Act already included women. He added that the new legislation caps women’s representation at two. He said that the Bill calls for the “showing of religious certificates” referring to the clause in the legislation defining “Waqf” as waqf or endowment by any person practicing Islam for at least five years and having ownership of such property.
“Will they ask for such certificates from (those following) other religions, asking if you have practiced for five years? Why is the government asking for such certificates?” said Gogoi.
‘Union govt has given itself power included under the State List’
TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee also called the Bill unconstitutional and called it “a clear breach of Muslims rights to perform their religious duty to manage their religious affairs”. Therefore, he said, “the Bill is in complete violation of Article 26 of the constitution.”
The Bill had earlier provided that if there is a question as to whether a property belongs to the government, it will be referred to the collector who will have the jurisdiction to determine “whether such property is a government property or not and submit his report to the state government”. On the recommendation of the joint parliamentary committee, however, this has been changed to an officer above the level of a district collector.
“How can the state be the judge of its own cause? The state will decide it is my property and it will be binding. Title of land can only be decided by civil court. This power that has been given, is under the State List and parliament has no power to legislate on that,” said Banerjee.
‘Why do you need to make this law?’
Samajwadi Party MP Akhilesh Yadav said that the “Waqf bill will prove to be BJP’s Waterloo.”
“While many are agreeing now, they are internally against it. This is a well thought out political move because their vote has divided, they want to divide it among Muslims as well. They want to use this Bill to divide Muslims,” he said.
Samajwadi Party MP Akhilesh Yadav with party MPs during the Budget session of Parliament, in New Delhi, Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Photo: PTI.
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi said that the bill is a violation of Article 26 and said that it allows the government to take control of a disputed property between the government till it is resolved by court.
“The home minister said that the board and council is separate from Islam. If that is true why do you need to make this law? Make a non-statutory body,” he said.
“This law is sourced from Article 26. Article 26 A, B, C, D says that religious denominations can manage their own affairs and administer their movable and immovable properties. If Hindu, Buddhists, and Sikhs can do so why not Muslims? This is a grave violation of Article 26,” he said.
Owaisi said that the government says there have been 17,000 encroachments. “In 2014 a bill was brought to end unauthorised encroachments. Then why did you withdraw it in 2024?”
DMK MP A. Raja said that it was ironic that the party that has not a single Muslim MP is claiming to protect their interests.
While questions were also raised on the joint parliamentary committee that examined the legislation after it was first introduced in parliament in August, BJP MP Jagadambika Pal who headed the panel said that all recommendations made by the committee had been accepted.
The committee had rejected 44 amendment suggestions made by opposition MPs, while 14 from the NDA camp were accepted.
