The amendment to Section 9 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as introduced by the 2025 Act, is neither a radical overhaul nor a constitutional affront. It is a modest reform that promotes inclusivity while preserving the council’s advisory essence. Far from infringing on rights under Articles 14, 25, or 26, it reflects a pragmatic approach to governance – one that respects religious autonomy while addressing modern administrative challenges.
Published Apr 07, 2025 | 8:26 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 07, 2025 | 8:26 PM
Historical Jama Masjid on the day of Muslim Festival Eid-al-Fitr. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, by revising the composition of the Central Waqf Council to include non-Muslim members in select roles, has sparked debate about its constitutional validity. While critics claim it may infringe on Articles 14, 25, and 26, the amendment retains Muslim leadership and expertise, and aligns with judicial precedent affirming the state’s right to regulate for accountability. Rather than diminishing Islamic control over Waqf affairs, the reform enhances transparency and public trust through broader representation in an advisory capacity.
The recent passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, marks a significant step in refining the legal framework governing Waqf properties in India.
This legislation has sparked debate, with challenges filed in the Supreme Court alleging violations of constitutional provisions, including Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 (religious freedom), 26 (management of religious affairs), and 300-A (property rights).
While the Act introduces several changes to the Waqf Act of 1995, one key amendment stands out and warrants closer examination.
Far from being a mere technical adjustment, Section 9 of the Act – which governs the composition of the Central Waqf Council – attempts to balance inclusivity with tradition.
The Central Waqf Council, established under Section 9 of the original 1995 Act, serves as an advisory body to the Central Government, State Governments, and Waqf Boards.
Its primary function is to guide these entities on the administration of Waqf properties – endowments dedicated under Islamic law for religious, charitable, or pious purposes.
The council issues directives to Waqf Boards to ensure effective management, a role outlined in the Act’s sub-sections. Before the 2025 amendment, the council’s composition was carefully structured: chaired by the Union Minister in charge of Waqf (ex officio), it included members appointed by the Central Government exclusively from the Muslim community.
These members comprised representatives of prominent Muslim organisations, experts in fields like administration and law, parliamentarians, Waqf Board chairpersons, and scholars of Muslim law, with a mandate that at least two be women.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, retains much of this framework but introduces subtle yet significant changes to the council’s composition.
The Union Minister remains the ex officio chairperson, and three Members of Parliament (two from the Lok Sabha, one from the Rajya Sabha) continue to serve.
However, unlike the earlier requirement that these parliamentarians be Muslim, the amended law removes this restriction, allowing for broader representation.
Additionally, the amendment mandates the inclusion of an Additional or Joint Secretary from the Union Ministry handling Waqf matters as an ex officio member.
Among the appointees, two must be women, and, notably, two members excluding ex officio ones must now be non-Muslims. Other categories, such as Muslim organisation representatives, Waqf Board chairpersons, and legal scholars, remain exclusively Muslim appointees.
This shift has raised questions about its intent and impact. Critics argue that including non-Muslims in a body overseeing Muslim religious endowments could infringe upon constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and autonomy.
To assess its impact, we must examine the amendment’s practical effect. The requirement for non-Muslim members applies only to certain categories, such as the parliamentarians or appointees outside the explicitly Muslim-designated roles.
This ensures that the council’s core expertise in Islamic law and Waqf administration remains intact, while introducing a degree of diversity in perspective.
Does this change violate constitutional rights? Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 25 protects religious practice, and Article 26 safeguards the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs.
The inclusion of two non-Muslim members, however, does not appear to undermine these principles.
The council’s role remains advisory – it does not administer Waqf properties directly or dictate religious practices. Its function is to enhance governance and transparency, areas where diverse representation can strengthen decision-making.
The amendment does not strip Muslim communities of their administrative rights over Waqf properties, nor does it transfer control to external authorities, which might have triggered a clearer violation of Article 26.
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Shirur Mutt case (1954 AIR 282) offers valuable insight here.
The court held that the state retains the authority to regulate the administration of religious or charitable institutions, provided such regulation addresses specific needs – like accountability or efficiency – without dismantling the community’s core rights.
Applying this principle, the amendment to Section 9 emerges as a measured intervention.
By integrating non-Muslim members, the council gains a broader lens to address long-standing disputes over Waqf properties, many of which involve complex legal and societal dimensions.
This inclusivity could foster greater public trust in the council’s recommendations, especially amid ongoing debates about Waqf administration.
Waqf properties, numbering over 600,000 across India, often face challenges related to mismanagement, encroachments, or legal disputes.
An advisory body reflecting diverse viewpoints may better navigate these issues, balancing religious sensitivities with administrative pragmatism.
Far from diluting the council’s purpose, the amendment aligns with the state’s duty to ensure equitable governance – a duty that transcends community-specific boundaries.
For the average citizen, this change might seem technical, but its implications are relatable. Imagine a local trust managing community assets – adding external advisers does not mean the trust loses its identity; it simply gains fresh perspectives to resolve persistent problems.
Similarly, the Central Waqf Council’s revised composition aims to enhance its effectiveness without altering its foundational role. The presence of non-Muslim members does not signal interference in religious doctrine but rather a commitment to collaborative problem-solving.
Thus, the amendment to Section 9 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as introduced by the 2025 Act, is neither a radical overhaul nor a constitutional affront.
It is a modest reform that promotes inclusivity while preserving the council’s advisory essence. Far from infringing on rights under Articles 14, 25, or 26, it reflects a pragmatic approach to governance – one that respects religious autonomy while addressing modern administrative challenges.
It has the potential to pave the way for greater transparency and harmony, ensuring that Waqf properties fulfil their intended purpose for generations to come.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
