The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025. 288 Members Voted in Favour and 232 Members Voted Against the Bill. The House also gave approval to the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill 2024 which repeals Mussalman Wakf Act 1923.
Earlier, the Lok Sabha held discussion on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 as reported by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju moved the bill in the Lok Sabha this afternoon. Moving the bill, the Minister said that the Bill has nothing to do with the religious practice of Muslims and it only deals with the properties related to Waqf Boards. He said the government wants to make the Waqf Boards inclusive and secular. He also added that the legislation is not intended for the management of Masjid. The Minister termed this legislation a prospective saying that it is not retrospective and not intended to confiscate anyone’s property.
The Minister said, as per the present bill, the Waqf Boards will have representations of different Muslim sects and women. He accused the opposition of misleading people over the Bill. He said, in the present Act, some provisions were misused to declare any land as Waqf property in the country. He said, during UPA rule in 2013, the amendments were made in the Waqf Act which had an overriding effect on other laws. He said, a total of 123 properties in the national capital were transferred to Delhi Waqf Board during Congress rule. He added that the Joint Parliamentary Committee as well as the government had a wider consultation with the stakeholders while framing the legislation. He questioned that India has the highest Waqf properties in the world then why Indian Muslims are still poor. The Minority Affairs Minister also moved the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2024.
Initiating the discussion, Gaurav Gogoi of Congress accused the government of misleading the people on this bill. He said, this bill is against the constitution. He alleged that through this bill the government wants to dilute the constitution, defame minorities and divide Indian society. He also rejected Mr. Rijiju allegations that a total of 123 properties in Delhi were transferred to Delhi Waqf Board during Congress rule. The Congress leader said the amendments in the current Act will create more problems.
Akhilesh Yadav of Samajwadi Party alleged that this Bill has been brought by the government to hide its failure related to price rise, unemployment, demonetisation and other issues. He questioned the government over the incident of stampede during Mahakumbh in Prayagraj and number of deaths in the incident. Mr. Yadav alleged that the intention behind this bill is not good and it has been brought by the BJP to control its vote. He said the legislation will hit the secular image of the country.
TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee termed the proposed legislation as misconceived, irrational and arbitrary. He alleged that it is an attempt to curtail the rights of Muslim community. Mr Banerjee said, discharging of religious duties cannot be the basis of any legislation.
A Raja of DMK termed the legislation as unconstitutional and anti-minority. He alleged that the Bill will harm the muslims.
Responding to the discussion Union Home Minister Amit Shah said, no non-Muslim will come into the Waqf. He said, there is no such provision to include any non-Muslim among those who manage the religious institutions. Mr Shah said, this is a huge misconception that this Bill will interfere with the religious conduct of Muslims and interfere with the property donated by them. He said, this misconception is being spread to instil fear among minorities for their vote bank and to appease specific voter demographics. Mr Shah said, this Bill was not necessary if the then Congress Government had not amended the Bill in 2013. He said, ahead of 2014 polls, for appeasement, they gave away prime lands of Lutyens Delhi as Waqf properties. The Union Home Minister said, Law exists for justice and for the welfare of the people.
Participating in the discussion, Ravi Shankar Prasad of BJP said this country belongs to the Muslim community as much as it to the Hindus, there is no doubt in it. He accused the Opposition of selective quoting of the Constitution during the debate. Mr Prasad urged the opposition to quote the law in its entirety, emphasising that the Constitution itself supports the government’s actions to protect Waqf properties and uplift marginalised communities. Mr Prasad said the bill proposes mandatory inclusion of women in Waqf boards, aiming to enhance transparency and gender justice in waqf property management.
Krishna Prasad Tenneti of TDP supported the Bill. He said Waqf properties worth 1.2 lakh crore rupees and over 36 lakh acres of land present an opportunity for economic and social transformation for minorities. He said, the properties have been underutilised and mismanaged with malafide intent. Mr Tenneti said, the amendments suggested by his party have been included in the Bill.
JD (U) Leader and Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Lalan) said, since the beginning of the discussion, attempts have been made to create an atmosphere as if the Bill is anti-Muslim. He said, the Bill is not anti-Muslim at all. Mr Singh said, Waqf is a sort of Trust which is formed to work in the interest of Muslims. He said, the trust has the right to do justice to all sections of Muslims, but that is not happening and that’s why the bill has been brought. Mr Singh the legislation will bring transparency in management of waqf properties and stop their misuse.
Mohibbulah of Samajwadi Party alleged that the Bill violates the fundamental rights of equality and religions. He aslo alleged that the autonomy of Waqf Board is being finished through the Bill.
Shrikant Shinde of Shiv Sena said, the legislation has been named as Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) and it will give hope to the minorities for progress. He took on opposition including Shiv Sena (UBT) over their stand on the Bill.
Arvind Sawant of Shiv Sena (UBT) said he was a member of the JPC on Waqf Bill. He alleged that till the end, clause-by-clause discussions were not held in the JPC. Mr Sawant also alleged that there is a great difference between the words and actions of the Government.
