On 6 April 2025, the President of India gave assent to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 2025, marketed as a measure to “streamline” oversight of India’s roughly 8.7 lakh Waqf properties (i.e., properties held in an inalienable charitable endowment under Islamic law). The amendment marks a dramatic but not surprising shift from the principles that have historically governed Waqf properties in India. Under the Waqf Act of 1995, these principles included community autonomy, minimal state interference, and respect for the distinct identity of religious trusts. This Act, whether by oversight or design, disturbs this balance by employing executive control, imposing discriminatory hurdles, and diluting the distinct religious character of Muslim trusts, all under the guise of efficiency and reform.

Five-Year Practice Requirement and Equality Before Law

Section 3(r) stipulates that only Muslims who have “practised Islam continuously for five years” may create a Waqf. In Islam, a person attains full Muslim status the moment they recite the kalma. No school of fiqh or thought imposes such a probationary period. Legally, this temporal bar contravenes Article 14’s guarantee of equality before the law, which prohibits arbitrary classifications lacking a “rational nexus” to the legislative objective. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court held that “unequal treatment of similarly situated persons, without a rational nexus, violates article 14 (para 101). The five-year loyalty test neither prevents fraud nor improves administrative oversight; instead, it injects bureaucratic gatekeeping into the very determination of religious identity. This not only violates Article 14 by creating an arbitrary classification but also breaches Article 25(1)  by restricting a person’s right to profess and practice their religion.​​ The provision, therefore, fails on both equality and religious freedom grounds.

Forced Non-Muslim Representation

The new Act mandates that every Waqf board must include at least two non-Muslim members: a requirement or condition that does not exist for Hindu or Christian religious trusts under Indian law. This anomaly violates Article 26(b) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its affairs in matters of religion. In Ratilal v. State of Bombay (1954), the Court reaffirmed that Article 26(b) includes the autonomous right of every denomination to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes (para 11). As to what constitutes “matters of religion”, the Supreme Court in Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. The State of Mysore (1997), held that Article 26 (b) covers even those practices which a community itself regards as essential to its faith (para 17).  Forced non-Muslim inclusion on Waqf boards directly intrudes upon this autonomy.

District Magistrates versus Specialist Tribunals: Breach of Article 26(d)

Waqf tribunal bodies with doctrinal and legal expertise are replaced by district magistrates under the new Act. The inclusion of district magistrates is nothing but an indirect interference by the Executive in personal religious affairs.

Article 26(d) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its property in accordance with law. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954), the Supreme Court held that a law that takes away the right of administration altogether from a religious denomination and vests it in any other authority would violate Article 26(d) (para 23). Likewise, in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan (1963), the Court held that any legislative measure regulating religious endowments must not extinguish or destroy the denomination’s right to administer its property (para 61). By replacing specialized tribunals with executive officers who lack religious or legal training, the amendment erodes both procedural integrity and the institutional autonomy safeguarded by the Constitution.

Waqf by User and Arbitrary Exclusion

The concept of Waqf by user refers to property that has been consistently used for religious or charitable purposes, such as burials or community service, over a long period, even in the absence of formal documentation. The 2025 Amendment adds a provision to Section 3(r) that removes the recognition of Waqf by user based on a forward-looking stipulation. This means properties would not acquire Waqf status merely through long-term use on or after the commencement of the Amendment.

Moreover, any property, whether in whole or in part, in conflict with or claimed as government property, is excluded from Waqf protection. The exclusion of such properties on the sole premise that they are under dispute is arbitrary and violates Article 14. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained, since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), that arbitrary measures are the direct opposite of equality (para 7).

Conclusion

The current issue regarding the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is under consideration before the Supreme Court, following CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s decision to defer any ruling due to the matter’s complexity. Despite the Central Government’s assurance not to de-notify Waqf properties, including “Waqf by user,” or make appointments until 5 May 2025, concerns persist over the Amendment’s constitutionality. By retrospectively excluding “Waqf by user” and enabling greater state control, the amendment risks violating religious autonomy and property rights. The Court’s decision to take up the matter on 15 May is crucial, as the outcome will shape the future balance between state power and minority rights.