Waqf Imbroglio: What the BJP Government Won’t Reveal
The Modi government’s central premise in targeting waqf institutions is that waqf is not a religious matter but merely one of property regulation. This characterisation is not incidental – it is a deliberate legal strategy. Were waqf to be acknowledged as a religious institution, as it traditionally and jurisprudentially is, the recent legislative interventions would face serious constitutional hurdles. They would be open to challenge under several provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee religious freedom and the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their affairs.
A secondary justification employed by the government is that it is acting in the “interests of the Muslim community” by seeking to reform mismanagement and ensure accountability in waqf administration. However, this raises an immediate and fundamental question: Why this sudden concern for Muslim welfare from a regime that has consistently marginalised the community in both rhetoric and policy? If mismanagement and opacity are indeed the true concerns, then Hindu temple properties present a far more urgent and extensive case for reform. These institutions collectively manage assets worth trillions of rupees with little uniform regulatory oversight, and yet, there is no central legislation governing their vast empire. The absence of transparency, audits or public scrutiny in many temple trusts is a matter of public record.
In contrast, waqf institutions are already regulated under a central law – The Waqf Act, 1995 – and are subject to oversight by state waqf boards and the central waqf council. Thus, the government's intervention in the name of reform is less about improving governance and more about consolidating state control over minority institutions, cloaked in the language of public interest.
Also read: Waqf 2025: Beyond Supreme Court Hearing, Doubts About Constitutionality of the Act Still Persist
Challenges to the newly promulgated Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, are currently pending before the Supreme Court. Notably, the court has acknowledged the constitutional sensitivity of the matter and prioritised it for hearing – an encouraging departure from its earlier inertia on critical issues such as electoral bonds, where delayed adjudication allowed the ruling party to fully benefit from the unconstitutional regime before it was struck down. In the waqf matter, the court has already stayed certain sections of the Act, scheduling the final hearing for May 5, 2025.
This essay addresses two principal concerns: First, whether the government’s claim that waqf is not a religious matter can be sustained; and second, whether its stated rationale of reforming waqf for the benefit of Muslims holds any credibility when contrasted with its inaction on far more opaque religious property regimes.
Waqf as a religious institution
The recent assertion by the Indian government that waqf pertains merely to property management and not to religion represents a fundamental mischaracterisation of the Islamic legal and theological tradition. The claim, often used to justify legislative interference in waqf administration, fails to grasp both the religious origins and the enduring spiritual function of waqf within Muslim life. Contrary to the government’s framing, waqf is not just a matter of secular property ownership but a constitutive element of Islamic charitable obligation (sadaqah jariyah), sacred endowment and communal piety. It is, therefore, a religious matter – just as Hindu temples and their properties are considered sacred religious institutions in the Hindu tradition.
In Islamic jurisprudence, waqf (plural: awqāf) refers to the permanent dedication of property – movable or immovable – for religious, pious or charitable purposes as an act of devotion (ibadah). The origin of waqf can be traced back to the Prophet Muhammad himself, who is reported to have encouraged his companions to create waqf institutions for public welfare. The foundational hadith often cited in support of waqf states: “When a person dies, all their deeds end except three: a continuing charity (sadaqah jariyah), beneficial knowledge, or a righteous child who prays for them.”
Waqf thus becomes a spiritual commitment that outlives the donor. It is seen not as secular property, but as a divinely-oriented trust, irrevocably alienated from personal ownership. Once a waqf is created, the founder relinquishes any proprietary rights, and the property is considered to belong to God.
This spiritual character is reflected in the classical requirements for waqf formation: the intention (niyyah) to dedicate the asset for God’s sake, the perpetual nature of the endowment, and the designation of a purpose consistent with Islamic ethics. Importantly, while waqf may fund services such as education, health or upkeep of mosques, the act of creating a waqf itself is a form of religious observance. Just as constructing or managing a temple is a religious act for Hindus, so too is the act of endowing and managing a waqf for Muslims.
The analogy with Hindu temples is instructive. Temple properties – be they land, ornaments, or revenue-generating assets – are seldom treated by the state as merely “property”. They are vested in the deity, managed by trustees and protected under legal regimes that affirm their religious status. The Supreme Court has upheld the special protections accorded to temples under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, recognising them as religious denominations. The same principle should extend to waqf, which is rooted in an equally theological tradition and serves similarly religious ends.
Also read: The Waqf Amendments Aren’t About Transparency – They’re About Tyranny
To isolate waqf from its religious meaning is not only jurisprudentially unsound but also constitutionally questionable. Article 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. This includes the administration of religious property.
In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court emphasised that matters which are integral to a religion – either as belief or practice – fall within the protective ambit of Article 26. Given that waqf is intimately tied to Islamic conceptions of charity, property and spiritual merit, it squarely qualifies for this protection.
Moreover, the attempt to reclassify waqf as merely property opens the door to discriminatory treatment. The government has not applied similar secular standards to temple trusts – many of which operate with considerable opacity and are governed by diverse regional laws that still respect their religious status. By subjecting waqf to exceptional scrutiny while leaving temple trusts relatively unscathed, the state risks violating the principle of parity among religions enshrined in the secular character of the Indian constitution.
Thus, the claim of the government that waqf is not a religious issue is a poor attempt to hide its vile communal agenda that seeks to devastate the Muslim community out of existence. It is squarely unconstitutional, morally repulsive and politically short-sighted with far reaching consequences to the future of this country.
Waqf boards versus temple trusts
Religious endowments in India are not merely spiritual or charitable institutions; they are also deeply embedded in the political economy of the state, holding vast tracts of land and generating significant revenue. Among these, Muslim waqf boards and Hindu temple trusts represent two of the largest religious land-holding institutions. However, despite the significantly larger wealth and opacity associated with Hindu temple trusts, the Indian state – particularly under the BJP – has disproportionately focused on scrutinising and regulating waqf properties.
Legal framework and administrative structure
Waqf in India refers to a permanent endowment made by Muslims for religious, charitable, or community welfare purposes. Governed by the Waqf Act of 1995 (amended in 2013), the administration of waqf properties is overseen by State waqf boards and the central Waqf Council under the Ministry of Minority Affairs. The Act provides a detailed framework for registration, audit, and supervision of waqf properties, with regular reports submitted to Parliament.
In contrast, Hindu temples are governed through a patchwork of state-specific laws and autonomous trusts. In several states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh, temple administration falls under the jurisdiction of Devasthanam Boards or the respective state’s Endowments Department. However, many of the richest temples – such as the Tirupati Balaji temple, Shirdi Sai Baba shrine and the Vaishno Devi Trust – function under autonomous boards with limited public oversight. There is no centralised or uniform legislation governing temple trusts, nor is there a national audit mechanism.
Wealth and landholding: Disparities in scale and oversight
The difference in scale between waqf boards and temple trusts is substantial. As per the 2011 report by the Sachar Committee, waqf properties comprise over 4.9 lakh registered units spread across 9.4 lakh acres of land, with an estimated value of Rs 1.2 lakh crore (approximately USD 15 billion). However, these properties often remain underutilised due to legal disputes, encroachments and mismanagement.
By contrast, Hindu temple trusts are vastly wealthier. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams alone had an annual budget of over Rs 3,100 crore in 2023-24 and gold reserves running into several tons. A Bloomberg report from 2016, titled 'India's Temples Are Overflowing With Gold', estimated that Indian temples collectively hold assets worth over Rs 1 trillion (USD 120 billion), including cash, gold, land, and real estate. Despite this, many temple trusts are not subject to rigorous statutory audits or RTI scrutiny, and their wealth remains largely opaque to the public.
Transparency and accountability
The Waqf Act mandates audits, publication of property lists and review mechanisms, even though enforcement remains uneven. However, the fact that waqf properties are regulated by central and state bodies opens them up to public critique and legal scrutiny.
Hindu temple trusts, on the other hand, frequently operate without such transparency. While temples governed by state endowment departments are audited, autonomous temple trusts often escape public accountability. Notably, several major temples have refused to come under the purview of the Right to Information Act, arguing that they are not “public authorities,” even though they manage public funds and donations.
This disparity in accountability has led scholars like Arvind Elangovan and Christophe Jaffrelot to argue that there exists a selective standard of secular governance when it comes to religious institutions in India, disproportionately targeting minority-run institutions while shielding dominant Hindu institutions from comparable scrutiny.
State intervention and political motives
Since 2014, the BJP-led government has increasingly targeted Waqf properties under the pretext of transparency and combating alleged corruption. The narrative of “Waqf as land jihad” – propagated by Sangh-affiliated groups – frames waqf endowments as part of a conspiracy to Islamise Indian land and undermine Hindu demography. This discourse, while devoid of empirical grounding, has been politically expedient in consolidating Hindu majoritarian sentiment.
The BJP’s ideological commitment to Hindutva – an ethno-nationalist ideology seeking to define India primarily as a Hindu nation – provides the broader context for this selective targeting. The scrutiny of Waqf is not simply administrative; it aligns with a project of cultural homogenisation aimed at delegitimising Muslim institutions and carving the public domain along majoritarian lines. Legislative interventions like the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 – passed amid trade and economic crises – serve to rally the party’s core base by offering symbolic victories against “Muslim appeasement”.
Also read: Central Hall | Whose Waqf Is It, Anyway?
Notably, if transparency were the true motive, the government would have taken steps to audit and regulate Hindu temple trusts, many of which are vastly wealthier and more opaque. But instead, Hindu religious institutions are valorised as symbols of national pride and culture, while Muslim institutions are vilified as extra-constitutional privileges.
The differential treatment of waqf boards and Hindu temple trusts reveals the fault lines of India’s secular governance. The scale of temple wealth, their relative lack of regulation and the state’s silence on their opacity, contrast sharply with the aggressive targeting of waqf properties. This divergence is not just a matter of policy but a reflection of a deeper ideological project. It is an attempt to recast the constitutional principle of secularism from state neutrality to majoritarian hegemony, where minority institutions are suspect and dominant institutions are sacrosanct. Unless this asymmetry is challenged, India’s pluralistic framework risks being eroded by a selective and politicised model of religious governance.
Where it stands
The current assault on waqf institutions by the Modi government cannot be understood as a neutral act of legal reform or administrative efficiency. Rather, it is a deeply political project rooted in the majoritarian logic of Hindutva, seeking to delegitimise Muslim religious endowments under the guise of property regulation and institutional reform. The government’s claim that waqf is not a religious matter is not only historically and theologically untenable but also constitutionally dubious. As established, waqf is a sacral institution embedded in Islamic piety and jurisprudence, analogous in both function and sanctity to Hindu temples. Its management, therefore, falls squarely within the protections offered by Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution.
Furthermore, the government’s purported concern for Muslim welfare is exposed as hollow when juxtaposed with its complete inaction on the far more extensive and opaque Hindu temple trusts. That the state refrains from regulating the trillion-rupee empire of temple wealth while aggressively intervening in the relatively modest and already-regulated waqf system reveals a stark asymmetry in governance. This selective approach betrays the secular promise of the Indian constitution and replaces it with a regime of differential treatment – one that valorises Hindu institutions as national heritage while pathologising Muslim institutions as suspect and anti-national.
At stake, then, is not simply the legal classification of waqf or the integrity of religious property management, but the foundational idea of India as a pluralistic and secular republic. The waqf imbroglio serves as a revealing instance of how state power, when guided by ideological imperatives rather than constitutional morality, can become a tool for the marginalisation of minorities under the veneer of reform.
It is imperative that civil society, constitutional courts and democratic institutions rise to the occasion, lest India’s religious diversity be subordinated to an exclusionary nationalism.
Anand Teltumbde is former CEO, PIL, professor, IIT Kharagpur and GIM, Goa; writer and civil rights activist.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
