Waqf Act in India: A Historical Journey and Global Perspective

BySarvananda

Apr 9, 2025 #Indian legal system, #land ownership Bharat, #property disputes, #religious land rights, #Waqf Act in India, #waqf board reform

waqf act, religious property, land disputes india, secularism, heterogeneous society, waqf reform, public trust, governance and religion

Waqf in a Heterogeneous Society: Balancing Faith, Law, and Public Trust in Modern Bharat

📅 Published: April 9, 2025 | 🔄 Last Updated: September 28, 2025

Waqf Act in India: A Historical Journey and Global Perspective

Part II(Int): Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Table of Contents

Examining Waqf Act in India

In my previous blog, I examined the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act—its sweeping reforms, the political and communal debates it sparked, and the intense international media attention it received. From digitization and inclusion of non-Muslim board members to widespread protests and global scrutiny, the 2025 amendment positioned Bharat’s waqf framework at the heart of a complex debate on secularism, governance, and religious rights. Read the previous analysis here. This follow-up explores a deeper layer of the issue—the historical evolution of waqf in Bharat and how its legal trajectory has shaped today’s controversies. In this blog we uncover how decades of legislation—often lacking transparency and robust safeguards—and compare the Indian laws with Muslim majority countries like Turkey, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia, where strict documentation, judicial oversight, and productive asset management are the norm. We, now, aim to understand not just what waqf is, but why it continues to challenge Bharat’s legal, communal, and constitutional frameworks in the present day.

Historical Context: Waqf Laws Before Waqf Act 1954

To understand the current tensions surrounding waqf Act in India, it is important to trace their historical roots and the original Islamic purpose behind these endowments.

Waqf, in Islamic law, refers to a perpetual charitable endowment—typically land or immovable assets—meant to serve community welfare, especially education, healthcare, and religious needs. The core idea is that while the asset remains intact, its benefits are directed toward public good indefinitely.

In India, the waqf tradition took root during the Delhi Sultanate and expanded under Mughal rule, as rulers and elites donated land to mosques, madrasas, and social services. However, the system lacked standardization and remained locally managed.

During British rule, efforts to regulate waqf began with laws like the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act of 1913, which aimed to bring clarity to family waqfs and address legal disputes. By 1950, around 52,000 acres were under waqf control, but with no central authority, oversight was minimal and varied across regions.

This loosely organized structure laid the groundwork for more formalized legislation in independent Bharat.

Legal Framework: From Post-Independence Reforms to Centralized Power

With independence came the need to formalize the waqf system within a modern legal structure. This section outlines how early legislative steps set the stage for centralization and eventual overreach.

The Waqf Act of 1954

Following independence, the Waqf Act of 1954 was passed by the Nehru-led government, ostensibly to institutionalize waqf management under state-level Waqf Boards. However, these boards were granted limited regulatory powers, and the system remained loosely coordinated.

While the Act aimed to protect waqf properties from misappropriation, in practice it was often seen as a political gesture—a symbol of inclusion for Muslims in a newly declared secular state.

The Central Waqf Council (1964): A Modified Waqf Act

Recognizing the lack of standard oversight across states, the government attempted to create a centralized advisory body. Yet, this institution fell far short of expectations.

In response to these administrative challenges, the Central Waqf Council (CWC) was established in 1964 under the provisions of the Waqf Act. Its purpose was to serve as a national advisory body to guide and oversee the functioning of state Waqf Boards. Headquartered in New Delhi and operating under the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Council was envisioned as a coordinating hub to promote consistency and accountability.

However, in reality, the CWC remains toothless and largely consultative:

It can issue guidelines and review reports but cannot enforce action, conduct binding audits, or intervene in property disputes.
Its oversight is often ignored by state boards, and its recommendations rarely result in corrective measures.
Even its flagship initiative—WAMSI (Waqf Management System of India), aimed at digitizing waqf records—has seen slow and uneven implementation, blocked by poor political will and bureaucratic inertia at the state level.

In its current form, the CWC lacks the institutional authority or autonomy to act as a meaningful check on waqf mismanagement, despite being the only central body tasked with oversight.

The Waqf Act of 1995: Centralization and Power Expansion

A major shift occurred with the Waqf Act of 1995, which centralized waqf governance and greatly expanded the authority of Waqf Boards. Two provisions, in particular, had far-reaching consequences:

Section 3 introduced the concept of “waqf by user”, allowing Waqf Boards to claim properties based on long-standing religious usage—even in the absence of ownership documents.
Section 85 made decisions of Waqf Tribunals final and non-appealable, cutting off access to civil courts and even the Supreme Court.

This centralization significantly empowered the boards but also opened the door to arbitrary land claims and legal overreach.

The 2013 Amendment: Expanding Claims, Sparking Controversies

A decade later, reforms under the 2013 amendment pushed the balance of power even further, triggering a wave of property disputes and public backlash.

The 2013 Waqf Amendment Act further tilted the balance in favor of Waqf Boards:

Section 40 enabled them to declare any property as waqf without proving ownership, shifting the burden of proof onto the existing owner.
This move sparked legal and public backlash, especially from those outside the Muslim community.

What’s crucial is that opposition also came from within. A number of Muslim intellectuals, community leaders, and reform advocates voiced concerns over the politicization of Waqf Boards, allegations of nepotism, and the lack of transparency in land records and asset management.

These internal critiques emphasized that waqf, if genuinely intended for community upliftment, must be professionally managed—with audits, accountability, and protection from misuse.

Expansion of Waqf Properties: A Timeline of Growth

These legal shifts coincided with a sharp rise in the number and size of waqf properties. The following timeline maps this expansion and its implications.

The legislative changes introduced in 1954, 1995, and 2013 have coincided with a significant expansion of waqf properties in India. This growth has raised questions about transparency, governance, and the impact on land ownership dynamics.

Key Milestones in the Growth of Waqf Properties:

1950 (Pre-Independence Estimate)
➤ Approximately 52,000 acres under waqf, managed locally with minimal oversight.
1995 (Before Centralization)
➤ Around 50,000 waqf properties.
➤ Estimated land holdings: 1 lakh acres.
2006 (Sachar Committee Report)
➤ 4.9 lakh waqf properties.
➤ Land area: 5.5 lakh acres.
➤ Estimated value: ₹6,000 crore.
➤ Annual revenue: ₹163 crore (approximately 2.7% return).
2013 (Pre-Amendment Spike)
➤ 6 lakh waqf properties.
➤ Land holdings: 18 lakh acres.
2025 (Post-Amendment Figures)
➤ Waqf land holdings: 39 lakh acres.
➤ This makes waqf boards the largest landholders in India, surpassing the Indian Railways (12.11 lakh acres) and the armed forces (17.99 lakh acres).

High-Profile Disputes: Legal Overreach in Action

Beyond statistics, real-life disputes illustrate how loosely defined provisions in waqf act have enabled questionable claims and fueled inter-community tensions.

Several high-profile waqf claims across the country have intensified public concern over the unchecked powers granted by the 1995 and 2013 waqf acts:

Tamil Nadu: The Waqf Board claimed lands in villages like Thiruchendurai (Tiruchirappalli), prompting protests by landowners asserting legal titles (The Hindu, October 2024). The claims, under legal review, reflect post-2013 powers.
Bet Dwarka, Gujarat: The board claimed land on the sacred island, sparking legal challenges in the Gujarat High Court (News18, November 2024). The dispute, tied to “waqf by user,” awaits resolution.
Delhi: Union Minister Kiren Rijiju stated the Waqf Board claimed properties like the CGO Complex and Connaught Place, linked to a 1970s case (The Indian Express, November 2024). The Supreme Court is reviewing, raising questions about waqf authority over public assets.
Kerala: The Munambam dispute involved 600 acres, including Christian lands, leading to reform support (The Hindu, January 2025).

These cases underscore how provisions like “waqf by user” and the non-appealable powers of Waqf Tribunals have enabled land encroachments, bypassing traditional legal safeguards and escalating inter-community tensions.

Underutilized and Mismanaged: The Real Cost of Waqf Assets

Beyond the legal and territorial battles lies a pressing concern: whether waqf lands are serving their intended purpose. The answer, in most cases, reveals a troubling picture.

Despite controlling vast land resources, waqf properties in India remain severely underutilized. According to the Sachar Committee (2006), waqf lands—then valued at ₹6,000 crore—generated only ₹163 crore annually, yielding just 2.7%. Nearly two decades later, while the value of these assets is estimated to have grown to over ₹1.2 lakh crore, annual revenue reportedly remains below ₹200 crore—highlighting a stark gap between potential and performance.

A large portion of these properties lie idle, suffer from poor maintenance, or are tied up in long-term leases fixed at outdated rates. For instance, anecdotal evidence from Punjab reveals that historic waqf properties like Khairuddin Jama Masjid and Jama Masjid Khalifa Raza-e-Musafa—valued at ₹50–100 crore each—generate just ₹5–15 lakh annually.

Further compounding the issue:

An estimated 56.5% of waqf properties are encroached upon or disputed, due to weak enforcement and collusion with local power structures.
State audit reports show that over 60% of waqf revenue is spent on litigation, leaving little for welfare or community services.

These figures and case-specific insights expose the widening gap between the intended charitable mission of waqf and its actual operational state, which remains plagued by mismanagement, neglect, and systemic inefficiency.

Comparing India’s Waqf System with Muslim-Majority Nations

To put India’s situation in perspective, it helps to compare it with waqf governance in countries where Islamic law is dominant—and where accountability structures are more robust.

In contrast to India’s system, many Muslim-majority nations have adopted waqf laws including waqf acts that are perceived as more rational, transparent, and balanced. Below are comparisons with three examples:

Turkey:

Turkey’s waqf system, managed by the Directorate General of Foundations, emphasizes strict documentation and state oversight. Waqf properties must be registered with clear evidence of endowment, and disputes are resolved through civil courts, ensuring judicial accountability. Unlike India, where Waqf Tribunals hold final authority, Turkey’s system allows appeals to higher courts, reducing allegations of overreach. Additionally, Turkey has modernized waqf usage, channeling funds into education, healthcare, and infrastructure, with less focus on land acquisition.

Malaysia:

Malaysia’s waqf governance, overseen by state-level Islamic Religious Councils, requires rigorous verification of waqf status, including historical records and community consultation. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, unlike India’s post-2013 system. Malaysia also employs digital registries to track waqf assets, minimizing disputes and ensuring transparency. Waqf properties are often developed into commercial ventures, like shopping complexes, to generate sustainable revenue for community welfare, a model less common in India due to legal and bureaucratic constraints.

Saudi Arabia:

In Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs regulates waqf with a focus on centralized control and clear legal criteria. Waqf claims require documented evidence, and disputes are adjudicated through Sharia courts with appeal mechanisms. The system prioritizes productive use of waqf assets, such as funding hospitals and schools, and avoids expansive land claims. Compared to India, Saudi Arabia’s framework limits arbitrary assertions of waqf status, fostering public trust.

These nations share common features: stringent evidence requirements, judicial oversight, and a focus on productive asset management. India’s system, by contrast, has been criticized for its broad definitions, limited checks on Waqf Board powers, and lack of appeal mechanisms, which have fueled perceptions of irrationality and bias.

Pakistan:

Pakistan’s waqf system is managed by provincial Auqaf Departments, with most public waqf properties—especially shrines and mosques—under direct state control. Established through the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, this model limits community participation in decision-making.

Verification standards are often vague, and digital records are limited, impacting transparency. While appeal through civil or Sharia courts is permitted, audits are infrequent, and political misuse is a recurring concern. Waqf revenues, largely from shrine donations, are typically routed to state-run religious programs rather than broad community welfare.

Pakistan’s system shows how centralized control without public oversight may reduce local disputes but raises questions about efficiency and accountability—challenges that mirror, in different ways, those seen in India.

Comparative Analysis Governance of Waqf Laws in The World

The governance of waqf, distinct from its religious essence, varies significantly between India’s post-2025 Waqf Amendment Act and the systems in Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, balancing state and religious control differently.

As per modified laws in Bharat, waqf, as a religious practice remains an exclusive Muslim right, covering spiritual acts like prayer, almsgiving, and mosque endowments. However, its governance—management and claim adjudication—faces state intervention through audits and non-Muslim board representation, enhancing oversight. Given waqf claims sometimes involve Hindu-owned properties, including temples, non-Muslim inclusion aims for fairness, unlike Muslim-majority nations’ uniform boards. Yet, religious tribunals primarily decide claims, retaining clerical influence with limited secular court appeals, making India less state-dominated.

Turkey’s secular agencies exclude religious bodies, with state courts handling appeals. Malaysia’s state and religious councils share control, clerics guiding claims under state rules and court oversight. Saudi Arabia’s ministry aligns religious courts to state regulations, permitting appeals. Pakistan’s state departments control public waqfs, limiting religious bodies to advisory roles with minimal court recourse. Turkey and Pakistan lead in state authority, followed by Saudi Arabia, then Malaysia’s shared model, while India’s tribunal reliance gives religious bodies more governance sway, despite state efforts.

The Road Ahead: Balancing Rights and Reforms

The path forward for waqf governance in Bharat presents both a challenge and an opportunity—to correct decades of administrative opacity without undermining the institution’s original purpose of serving public welfare.

The waqf system in India has evolved through a complex interplay of legal enactments, community expectations, and administrative gaps. While the 1954, 1995, and 2013 waqf laws aimed to protect waqf properties, they also opened avenues for unchecked expansion, opaque claims, and growing public distrust—as seen in high-profile disputes involving Tamil Nadu villages, Bet Dwarka, and Karnataka farmlands. In contrast, countries like Turkey, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia demonstrate that it is possible to balance religious autonomy with state accountability and judicial oversight.

Importantly, support for reform is not limited to non-Muslim communities. Prominent Muslim voices have also acknowledged the need for systemic change.

Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi, President of the All India Muslim Jamaat, described the 2025 amendment as essential to curb corruption and expose collusion between waqf officials and land mafias, which has long deprived the community of rightful benefits.
Shadab Shams, Chairman of the Uttarakhand Waqf Board, endorsed the reforms and condemned resistance to transparency, labeling critics as “waqf encroachers.” (Source: ap7am.com)

These endorsements reflect a growing intra-community consensus that accountability must be at the heart of waqf governance.

Reform efforts must prioritize:

Transparent valuation of waqf properties
Digital audits and publicly accessible registries
Independent grievance redressal and appeal mechanisms
Inclusion of diverse community voices, especially those advocating reform from within the Muslim community

As Bharat moves forward, the goal should not be to dismantle waqf institutions—but to reclaim their original spirit of service, fairness, and sustainability in a way that aligns with the principles of both constitutional equity and cultural coexistence.

Reflections of Comparative Waqf Laws in the World

Waqf in India is no longer just a religious matter—it is a legal, administrative, and social challenge. Unlike other nations that have introduced clarity and control, India’s waqf laws remain vague and poorly enforced, even after the 2025 amendment. True reform now requires clear rules, strict oversight, and fair access for all.

Call to Action

If you believe waqf governance needs reform grounded in transparency, legal balance, and community welfare, share this article to spread awareness. Let your voice be part of the growing conversation about accountability and harmony in India’s future.

Join the dialogue. Support reform. Protect what matters.
Follow us for more deep dives into Bharat’s legal, cultural, and spiritual landscape.

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Video

Glossary of Terms

Waqf: An Islamic endowment of property (often land) for religious or charitable purposes. The asset is held permanently, and its proceeds are used for community welfare.
Waqf Board: A statutory body constituted under the Waqf Act to manage and oversee waqf properties within a state or union territory in India.
Waqf by User: A legal provision introduced under the Waqf Act, 1995 (Section 3), allowing Waqf Boards to claim ownership of a property based solely on its long-standing religious use—even in the absence of ownership documentation.
Waqf Tribunal: A quasi-judicial body established to resolve waqf-related disputes. Decisions made by the tribunal were made non-appealable to civil courts under Section 85 of the Waqf Act.
Central Waqf Council (CWC) : A national advisory body established in 1964 under the Waqf Act to guide and oversee the functioning of state Waqf Boards. It has consultative powers but limited enforcement authority.
WAMSI (Waqf Management System of India) : A digital initiative launched by the Central Waqf Council aimed at computerizing waqf property records to increase transparency and reduce encroachments.
Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913: A British-era legislation that legally recognized waqf for family and religious purposes, allowing such endowments to be considered valid under colonial law.
Encroachment: Illegal occupation or use of waqf property by private individuals, organizations, or government entities without proper authorization.
Sachar Committee: A committee formed in 2005 by the Government of India to examine the socio-economic and educational status of Muslims in India. It also evaluated the functioning and revenue performance of waqf properties.
Appeasement Politics: A term used to describe policies or legislative actions seen as overly favorable to a particular community or group, often for electoral gain.
Sharia Courts: Islamic courts that interpret and apply Islamic legal principles (Sharia law) in civil matters. Mentioned here in comparison with legal frameworks in Muslim-majority countries.
Perpetual Endowment: A donation or gift that is intended to be preserved indefinitely, where only the income or benefits derived from the asset are used for charitable purposes.
Judicial Oversight: The ability of civil or higher courts to review and challenge decisions made by administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like Waqf Tribunals.