The Rajya Sabha witnessed a heated debate on Thursday as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition clashed over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. While Leader of the House and BJP chief J.P. Nadda defended the bill, calling it a necessary reform, opposition leaders criticised it as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijuju said the bill was about "property management and not religion."
Nadda accused the Congress of treating Muslim women as “second-grade” citizens during its tenure and lauded the Narendra Modi-led government for banning the practice of triple talaq. “This government has brought them into the mainstream.” He further emphasised that several Muslim-majority nations had already banned triple talaq, but the Congress-led UPA failed to act during its decade-long rule.
Defending the bill, Nadda argued that its primary purpose was to bring reforms to the management of Waqf properties and stressed that the bill was in the national interest.
The discussion in the Rajya Sabha started a few hours after it was passed by the Lok Sabha during an extended session.
In the upper house also, the united Opposition took on the government questioning its intention to bring a legislation that amounts to interfering in the affairs of the minority community.
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha strongly opposed the bill, calling it “dog-whistle politics” aimed at alienating Muslims from the mainstream. He warned that the current atmosphere of economic boycotts, attacks on places of worship, and controversial searches inside mosques was already creating fear among Muslims. Jha criticised the provision allowing non-Muslims to be nominated to Waqf Boards, suggesting that such a measure should be applied across all religious institutions for fairness.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP John Brittas described the bill as an “assault on the Constitution.”
Biju Janata Dal (BJD) MP Muzibulla Khan expressed concerns that Muslims were feeling increasingly insecure under the current regime. Referring to the bill, he called for the removal of the provision requiring a five-year proof of practice for donations.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Tiruchi Siva rejected the bill outright, calling it “legally flawed, constitutionally indefensible, and morally reprehensible.”
AAP’s Sanjay Singh accused the BJP of attempting to control Muslim religious institutions through legislation, warning that similar measures could soon be extended to Sikh, Christian, and Jain religious bodies.
Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju strongly refuted opposition claims, insisting that the bill aimed at transparency, accountability, and efficiency in Waqf property management. He reassured that only Muslims could become Waqifs and dismissed concerns about a non-Muslim majority in the Central Waqf Council.
Rijiju highlighted that Waqf-owned properties had increased from 4.9 lakh in 2004 to 8.72 lakh at present. He also argued that the bill protects the rights of all Muslim sects and seeks to address the misuse and illegal occupation of Waqf properties. “Out of 22 members in the Central Waqf Council, only four will be non-Muslims,” he clarified.
Need for Waqf bill
According to the government, the Waqf system is primarily about property management. The Waqf Act of 1995 and its amendments regulate Waqf properties to ensure their proper use and governance. However, multiple court rulings have emphasized that the Waqf administration is a secular function rather than a religious one.
Official sources highlighted that several cases of “mismanagement” and “disputed” claims fuelled concerns over Waqf properties. Some of the notable incidents include: the Bihar Sunni Waqf Board claimed an entire village, leading to legal battles; Around 600 Christian families protested after the Waqf Board claimed their ancestral lands; the Waqf Board declared the Surat Municipal Corporation Headquarters as Waqf property.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill introduces key reforms which are aimed at eliminating “arbitrary” property claims by removing Section 40, which allowed unilateral declarations. Reacting to the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, the government argued it was for fairer decision-making.