Is the state merely supreme, or is it also sacred? Does it tower above all other social, cultural and religious institutions created by citizens who follow diverse practices and beliefs? In a state governed by laws, do the laws reign supreme, too?
These weighty questions―essentially concerning the supremacy of the Constitution over paralegal religious traditions―are becoming pronounced under the BJP-led Union government, which has in recent years passed legislative reforms that some hail as steps to strengthen secularism by ensuring legal uniformity and others decry as assaults on religious rights and pluralism.
The BJP views legislations like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the criminalisation of triple talaq, both passed in 2019, and measures such as ‘One Nation, One Election’ and uniform civil code, as steps to legally unify India’s fragmented secular system. The most recent such milestone is the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, passed by Parliament and assented to by President Droupadi Murmu on April 5.
The act amends the Waqf Act, 1995, which governs properties dedicated by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law. With 8.7 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres across India with an estimated value of 01.2 lakh crore, the waqf system is a significant socioeconomic institution. But it has long been viewed as mismanaged, corrupt and non-transparent. The 2025 act introduces key changes: mandatory registration of waqf properties, inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, and provisions to ensure women’s representation in waqf administration.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah said the act would modernise waqf governance, eliminate fraudulent claims, and ensure that each endowment serves its intended purpose―without affecting the waqf’s religious sanctity. The BJP says the law has a secular vision―it subjects waqf properties to the same accountability standards as other public institutions, reducing arbitrary control by religious bodies and promoting equitable management.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act is part of a broader BJP strategy to streamline legal frameworks across religious and social divides. Legal uniformity, in this context, refers to the harmonisation of laws to ensure equal application and accountability, reducing disparities rooted in religion-specific regulations. With petitions filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the new waqf law, the judiciary will now interpret whether the amendments align with the principles of equality, secularism and federalism.
Winds of change: The Delhi Waqf Board office at Daryaganj | Sanjay Ahlawat
BJP national spokesperson Syed Shahnawaz Hussain has called the act “pro-Muslim and pro-poor”. “The [legislation] will benefit the poor among Muslims,” he said. “The Citizenship (Amendment) Act was not against Muslims―has any Muslim lost his or her citizenship to the CAA? So much false narrative was set, and in the same way, a false narrative is being made on the [waqf amendment].
Critics say the act diminishes the role of waqf tribunals that adjudicate disputes over waqf properties and modified the dispute resolution process by altering the tribunal’s composition and powers. “The act imposes arbitrary restrictions on waqf properties and their management, thereby undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community,” said Supreme Court Advocate on Record, Anas Tanvir.
The act empowers district collectors to carry out surveys and determine ownership of disputed properties, and mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf-related decision-making. Tanvir argues that this reduces representation of experts in Islamic law. “It disproportionately affects willingness to resort to legal recourse through specialised tribunals, in contrast to the robust protections provided to other religious institutions under their respective endowment laws,” he said.
What makes the debate complex is that endowment bodies in other religions are inherently different. Hindu endowments are primarily governed by state-specific laws, while Christian endowments are managed under general trust laws or specific state provisions. There is no single national legislation similar to the waqf law. Also, Hindu endowment laws have state oversight managed exclusively by Hindus.
“Are we going to include non-Hindus in Hindu temple boards?” asked Prof Faizan Mustafa, vice chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. “Are we not violating the right of religious denominations under Article 26 to manage their own properties?”
Viewed alongside the citizenship and triple talaq legislations, and the push for a uniform civl code (UCC) governing marriage, divorce, inheritance and property rights across religions, the waqf amendments are in line with the BJP’s ambitious agenda to bring about a legally uniform state that supersedes religious exceptionalism. But the path to this uniformity is fraught with obstacles. The CAA, for instance, fast-tracked citizenship for non-Muslim refugees, triggering protests and criticism that it violated the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14. The BJP, in response, said the law merely helped persecuted minorities fleeing majoritarian states in India’s neighbourhood, and that it did not alter the Constitution’s secular citizenship framework.
The BJP has framed UCC as a cornerstone of secularism, arguing that religion-specific laws such as Muslim personal law and Hindu succession rules create legal fragmentation and perpetuate inequality, especially for women. But UCC has been criticised for imposing a majoritarian lens on personal matters such as marriage and inheritance.
Legal battles in the Supreme Court, widespread opposition from Muslim organisations and political rivals threaten the BJP’s uniformity agenda. A key challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act is that it violates Article 14―the act requires that a person must have practised Islam for at least five years to create a waqf. This is a distinction not applied to other religious or charitable trusts.
There is also the argument that such restrictions, along with the removal of the ‘waqf by user’ provision―meant for properties historically treated as waqf even though there has not been a formal legal declaration by the owner―infringe on Article 25 (the freedom to practise religion) and Article 26 (the freedom to manage religious affairs).
“The basic thing here is that a waqf is a private property of a Muslim who has dedicated it to God,” said Haris Beeran, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member. “How can a private property be managed by persons who are not even believers? This is the basic question.” According to him, the legislation is unconstitutional, as it undermines constitutional principles and discriminates against Muslims.
The petitions have also challenged the application of the Limitation Act, 1963―which places time limits and makes provisions for extensions. Critics say the authority given to district collectors to reclassify waqf as government-owned property deprives waqf boards of assets without due process.
“This [limitation application] may, at first blush, seem a positive measure,” said senior advocate and Lok Sabha member Abhishek Manu Singhvi. “But, on deeper reflection, it is actually designed in favour of persons and government entities that have been illegally occupying waqf properties for years.”
According to Singhvi, the act helps those who occupy waqf property to claim ownership by ‘adverse possession’―the legal doctrine under which a person who does not have legal title to a property can claim legal title if he can prove continuous, uninterrupted occupation of the property for a statutorily defined period.
Such occupiers, said Singhvi, can claim permanent ownership by adverse possession after 12 years. “Limitation will kick in after 12 years, and claims that the property is waqf will be time-barred,” he said. Singhvi saw an irony: on one hand, by omitting the provision of waqf by user, the government has diluted the legal protection to waqf properties; on the other, with the limitation application, it has created a opportunity to permanently claim these properties.
According to Kapil Sibal, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member, the dilution of Muslim-majority governance makes waqfs vulnerable to encroachment, allowing state authorities unchecked control over properties dedicated to God under Islamic law.
Sibal questioned the government’s reasoning about the finality of waqf tribunal decisions, saying the Hindu endowment law has a similar provision that makes the management’s decision final. “So you have no objection if the management’s decision in Hindu endowments is final,” he said, “but if the tribunal’s decision is final in the case of waqfs, you have an objection.”