A seismic shift is underway in the management of Waqf properties across India. Yesterday, the Lok Sabha witnessed a marathon 12-hour showdown culminating in the passage of the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill, 2025 – a piece of legislation poised to dramatically reshape the landscape of these religious and charitable endowments. But is it a beacon of hope (“UMEED”) for better governance, or a veiled attempt to exert greater control over Muslim institutions? Let’s delve into the heart of this contentious bill.
1. The UMEED Bill Unveiled: A Closer Look at the Proposed Overhaul
The UMEED Bill, 2025, seeks to replace the existing Waqf Act of 1995 with a new framework aimed at modernizing and streamlining the administration of properties dedicated by Muslims for religious and charitable purposes. Key changes proposed include:
- A New Identity: The very name change to “Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act” signals the government’s intent for a fresh start.
- Redefining Waqf: The bill clarifies the definition of Waqf, ensuring that general Muslim trusts governed by other laws remain outside its purview. Crucially, it mandates a minimum of five years of practicing Islam for anyone dedicating property as Waqf and abolishes the concept of “Waqf by user,” requiring formal declaration instead. Furthermore, women’s inheritance rights are now prioritized before a property can be declared Waqf.
- Shifting Survey Power: The responsibility of surveying Waqf properties moves from a dedicated Survey Commissioner to the District Collector, aligning it with state revenue laws.
- Government Land No Longer Waqf: A highly debated clause stipulates that any government property identified as Waqf will revert to government ownership, with the local Collector empowered to update land records accordingly.
- Reshaping Waqf Bodies: The composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards will see the inclusion of nominated non-Muslim members, alongside mandatory representation from diverse Muslim sects and women.
- Overhauling Tribunals: Waqf Tribunals will now be headed by a District Court judge, with a Joint Secretary-level state government officer as a member, removing the requirement for a Muslim law expert. Appeals against Tribunal orders will now go directly to the High Court.
- Embracing Technology: The bill champions the use of digital platforms for registration, auditing, and legal processes related to Waqf properties, aiming for greater efficiency.
- Financial Adjustments: The mandatory contribution of Waqf institutions to the Waqf Boards is proposed to be reduced from 7% to 5%.
2. Voices in the Parliament: A Battle of Perspectives
The Lok Sabha echoed with impassioned arguments for and against the bill during a grueling 12-hour debate.
The Government’s Stance (Hope and Progress):
- Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, the bill’s champion, asserted its aim was not to interfere with religious practices but to ensure better management for the benefit of the Muslim community, especially the needy. He accused the opposition of spreading misinformation.
- Home Minister Amit Shah clarified that the inclusion of non-Muslims in administrative roles was for enhanced transparency, drawing parallels with charity commissioners in other trusts. He accused the opposition of fear-mongering for political gain.
- Other ruling party MPs like Ravi Shankar Prasad, Krishna Prasad Tenneti, Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Lalan), and Shrikant Shinde echoed the sentiment that the bill was constitutional, intended to protect Waqf properties from misuse, empower marginalized communities and women, and usher in an era of hope and progress.
The Opposition’s Outcry (Concerns and Resistance):
- Congress’s Gaurav Gogoi led the charge, alleging the government’s true motive was to seize minority land and undermine the Constitution, questioning the bill’s timing and lack of consultation.
- DMK’s A Raja highlighted the irony of a party with no Muslim MP claiming to protect Muslim interests.
- Trinamool Congress’s Kalyan Banerjee denounced the bill as a “clear breach” of Muslims’ constitutional right to manage their religious affairs.
- RSP’s NK Premachandran specifically proposed an amendment against the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf bodies.
- Samajwadi Party’s Mohibbulah argued that the bill violated fundamental rights and stripped Waqf Boards of their autonomy.
- AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi was the most vocal critic, labeling it a “Waqf Barbaad Bill” (Waqf Destruction Bill) and even symbolically tearing a copy in protest against what he saw as an attack on Muslim religious liberties.
- Numerous other opposition leaders voiced concerns about the bill’s constitutionality, infringement on religious freedom, increased government control, and the absence of meaningful consultation with the Muslim community.
3. Amendments: A Tidal Wave of Opposition, A Gentle Ripple from the Government
The intensity of the opposition’s resistance was evident in the sheer number of amendments presented – at least 132. In stark contrast, the government moved only four amendments.
4. The Vote: Opposition Shut Out, Government Sails Through
Despite the barrage of opposition amendments, not a single one was accepted. All 132 (or more) opposition proposals were ultimately negated. The government’s four amendments, on the other hand, were passed by a voice vote, indicating less contention on those specific points.
The final vote on the bill itself saw a clear division: 288 members voted in favor, while 232 voted against, securing its passage through the Lok Sabha.
5. JPC Insights: Recommendations Made, Paths Diverged
Prior to its tabling, the Waqf Amendment Bill underwent scrutiny by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which considered 58 proposed amendments. The JPC reportedly accepted 14 and rejected 44. Some key JPC recommendations and their fate in the final bill:
- Clear Distinction: The JPC’s recommendation to clearly separate Waqf properties from other Muslim trusts was approved and reflected in the bill.
- Digital Platform: The suggestion for a centralized digital portal for Waqf management was also approved and incorporated.
- Women’s Inheritance: Ensuring women’s inheritance rights before Waqf declaration, a JPC recommendation, was approved.
- Dispute Resolution Officer: The JPC suggested a senior state government officer (above Collector rank) for government property claims, which was approved in principle in the final bill.
- Muslim Law Expert: A key divergence occurred with the JPC’s recommendation to include a Muslim law expert in Waqf Tribunals, which was rejected in the passed bill.
- Registration Extension: The JPC’s acceptance of an extension for Waqf property registration on the central portal with valid reasons was approved, with the Waqf Tribunal having the authority to grant such extensions.
- Waqf Board Representation: The JPC’s suggestions regarding the inclusion of nominated non-Muslims and government officials in Waqf Boards were largely approved in the final bill’s provisions.
6. Lok Sabha Verdict: Numbers Tell the Story
The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025, officially cleared the Lok Sabha hurdle on Thursday, April 3, 2025.
The decisive vote count was:
- In Favor (Ayes): 288
- Against (Noes): 232
This outcome, coupled with the rejection of all opposition amendments, underscores the government’s strong majority in the lower house. Notably, the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, which repeals the outdated Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923, was also approved alongside the amendment bill.
7. Opposition’s Outcry: Voices of Dissent After the Vote
The passage of the bill in the Lok Sabha triggered immediate and strong reactions from opposition leaders, who voiced their concerns to the media:
- Leaders from the Congress decried the bill as an “attack on the Constitution” and a move to “disenfranchise minorities,” alleging a lack of genuine consultation.
- AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi reiterated his condemnation, vowing to challenge the bill legally and democratically, particularly objecting to the inclusion of non-Muslims and increased government control.
- Leaders from parties like the Trinamool Congress and Samajwadi Party echoed these sentiments, calling the bill “unconstitutional” and an attempt to undermine the autonomy of Waqf institutions, pledging continued opposition in the Rajya Sabha.
- The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also announced its intention to legally challenge the bill if it passes the Rajya Sabha and signaled plans for nationwide protests against what they perceive as a detrimental law.
8. Final Verdict: A Balancing Act Between Reform and Rights?
The UMEED Bill, 2025, stands at a critical juncture. The government champions it as a necessary step towards modernizing Waqf management, ensuring transparency, and unlocking the potential of these properties for the benefit of the Muslim community, particularly the poor. They point to measures like digitization, inclusion of women, and clearer definitions as positive strides.
However, the Muslim community and opposition parties harbor deep reservations, viewing the bill as a potential infringement on their religious freedom and autonomy. Their key concerns revolve around:
Potential Benefits (Government Perspective):
- Greater Transparency: Digital records and stricter audits could curb corruption and improve accountability.
- Enhanced Protection: Stronger measures against illegal encroachment might safeguard Waqf assets.
- Increased Inclusivity: Mandatory female representation on Waqf boards could bring diverse perspectives.
- Reduced Disputes: Clearer definitions regarding government properties could minimize legal battles.
- Improved Efficiency: Technology integration and streamlined processes could lead to better administration.
Potential Drawbacks (Community/Opposition Concerns):
- Religious Interference: The inclusion of non-Muslims in administrative bodies is seen by some as an unwarranted intrusion into Muslim religious affairs.
- Erosion of Autonomy: Increased government control, especially in property dispute resolution, raises fears of politically motivated decisions.
- Loss of Historical Waqfs: The abolition of “Waqf by user” could jeopardize the status of long-standing religious and charitable properties lacking formal documentation.
- Discriminatory Donor Clause: The five-year practice of Islam requirement for donors is viewed as restrictive and unjustified.
- Diluted Muslim Representation: Changes in the composition of Waqf boards could potentially lessen the direct influence of elected Muslim representatives.
- Potential for Bias: Removing the Muslim law expert from Waqf Tribunals and granting significant power to government officials in property disputes raises concerns about fairness and potential bias.
Ultimately, the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025, represents a complex and contentious piece of legislation. While its stated goals of empowerment, efficiency, and development are laudable, the concerns raised by the Muslim community and opposition regarding religious freedom and autonomy cannot be dismissed lightly. The bill’s journey through the Rajya Sabha and its subsequent implementation will be crucial in determining whether it truly unlocks the potential of Waqf properties for the benefit of the community or inadvertently undermines the very institutions it seeks to reform. The debate underscores the delicate balance between the need for modernization and the protection of minority rights in a diverse nation.
