[Answered] Analyze the recent amendments to the Waqf Act, evaluating their potential impact on the management of Waqf properties and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of religious minorities.

Introduction

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has stirred widespread debate due to its significant implications for the management of waqf properties—religious endowments primarily created and managed by the Muslim community. The amendments aim to modernize waqf governance, but they have raised concerns regarding the erosion of religious autonomy, leading to judicial intervention.

Key Amendments and Their Implications

1. Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’: The amendment eliminates recognition of properties that became waqf through long-standing public religious use, despite lacking formal documentation.

Impact: This puts many historic mosques and dargahs—estimated to be nearly half of all waqf properties—at risk of de-notification, especially those lacking colonial-era records.

2. Eligibility Criteria to Create Waqf: Only individuals who have practiced Islam for at least five years may now create a waqf.

Impact: This may infringe on religious freedom under Article 25, limiting charitable acts inspired by faith.

3. Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and Councils: The law permits non-Muslims to serve in governing bodies.

Impact: This raises constitutional questions under Article 26, which grants religious communities the right to manage their religious affairs autonomously.

4. State Control Over Disputed Properties: The state is empowered to take control of waqf properties during pending disputes.

Impact: This provision risks executive overreach and undermines due process.

Judicial Intervention

The Supreme Court, responding to over 100 petitions, intervened by:

• Recording the Centre’s assurance to not implement key provisions (e.g., appointments, de-notification) until further hearing.
• Raising concerns about the violation of Articles 25 and 26, especially regarding religious autonomy and representation.

The Court’s role is pivotal in safeguarding minority rights, ensuring that reform does not come at the cost of constitutional guarantees.

Conclusion

While the 2025 amendments to the Waqf Act seek to enhance transparency, they also risk undermining religious freedoms and minority autonomy. The judiciary’s proactive stance is essential in maintaining the constitutional balance between state regulation and religious rights in a secular, pluralist democracy.