As the Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 with 128 votes favouring the bill and 95 votes opposing it, there were several potent objections raised by Opposition MPs. This comes a day after the Lok Sabha passed the bill after a 12-hour debate when 288 MPs voted in favour and 232 voted against it.
The BJP-led government’s Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 aims to amend the Waqf Act, 1995, in what it calls an attempt to enhance the administration and management of waqf properties in India by addressing the shortcomings of the previous act.
While the bill was passed by a majority in both houses, Opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha provided compelling rebuttals to several provisions. The MPs’ arguments ranged from accusing the BJP of spreading misinformation about the Waqf Act of 1995, attempting to seize 123 historical waqf properties, to concerns of legalising adverse possession of waqf land. They also accused the government of selectively targeting the Muslim community through the bill.
Here’s a look at some of the speeches.
Imran Pratapgarhi, Congress
Pratapgarhi said that the government is making the Waqf Tribunal Board sound like a religious khaap panchayat (informal assembly of elders).
”The truth is, the Waqf Tribunal Board is also a government judicial body, which has government-appointed judges and administrative officials,” he said.
The MP pointed out how Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement – “no one can go to the courts to contest the Waqf Tribunal Board” – was inaccurate. Pratapgarhi said, according to the Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, not only can a High Court review decisions taken by the Waqf Tribunal Board but can also change it.
“Truth is, the Waqf Board itself is fighting for several of its lands in the courts,” he added.
Coming to the contentious and oft-talked topic of the 123 waqf lands in Delhi, the MP provided a historical account. He stated that in 1911, when Delhi became the capital, the British acquired Muslim properties around Raisina Hills and gave control to Edwin Lutyens. Muslims resisted to preserve their places of worship, leading to the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act of 1913 to protect 123 mosques, later placed under the Sunni Majlis Auqaf. Post-Independence, the 1954 Waqf Act and the 1964 creation of the Central Waqf Council laid the groundwork for their recognition. In 1976, the Burney Committee recommended handing them to the Delhi Waqf Board. After legal delays, the UPA government did so in 2013.
“In 2014, the BJP government came to power and has been conspiring to grab these properties ever since. The BJP doesn’t have even one Muslim MP in the Lok Sabha to present the bill that has been touted to benefit Muslims. The bill that is made to look like it will benefit the rights of Muslim women, the government doesn’t have a single Muslim women MP to present it either in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha or any other Assembly of the country,” he said.
Manoj Kumar Jha, RJD
Jha began his speech by stating that if the Minority Minister read the Constituent’s Assembly’s debate on the Constitution’s sections a, b and c of Article 26, then perhaps their work would have been sufficed by a non-statutory body as well instead of bringing in the amendment bill.
Further, he said that if the government wants to create a truly secular environment, then in every religious institution there should be members of other religions. Only then will it make sense.
“Will all experiments be done with Muslims? This is not appropriate,”he said.
Jha raised concerns over the removal of the “waqf by user” clause in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. Drawing from personal experience in Bihar, he highlighted how many individuals, especially small farming families, lack formal documentation for properties that have been used for religious or community purposes for generations. Jha warned that without "waqf by user," such properties could lose protection, sparking massive litigation and disputes.
"I am from Bihar. We come from a small farmer family. There is a survey happening there. We couldn’t find our (official) papers. The Bihar government has also stopped the survey itself. There are old properties and a lack of technical expertise (among people). Everyone will come under controversy. A mountain of litigation will come up among us,” he said.
He further stated that while the government claims to have provisions for Pasmanda Muslims (the marginalised section), its actions raise questions – “If they truly care for the weaker sections, why are caste censuses not being conducted?”
He accused the authorities of enabling the institutional exclusion of Muslims, while emphasising that the Muslim community remains deeply rooted and loyal to this land. “Don't rush this process… or everything could unravel,” he cautioned. “Send it back for consultation and curb excessive executive interference. You’re shifting from elected to nominated members,” Jha added.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Congress
Senior advocate and Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi highlighted that the bill eliminates the concept of “waqf by user” – at least going forward – which would otherwise allow waqf status to be conferred based on long-standing, uninterrupted use.
He further remarked, “Conversely, if this bill becomes law, the application of the Limitation Act will permit the government, semi-governmental bodies, or individuals outside the community to claim ownership of genuine waqf properties, provided they’ve held continuous, undisputed possession for over 12 years and no legal proceedings were initiated during that time.”
Singhvi argued that this effectively paves the way for adverse possession, allowing non-community entities to take over waqf properties simply by occupying them without legal challenge. He accused the government of strategically weakening the safeguards around waqf land, while simultaneously enhancing its own ability to permanently seize those very properties. “This is a calculated move by the government to advance its own interests,” he concluded.
Kapil Sibal, Independent
Sibal said while he is in support of the bill proposing changes to the composition of waqf boards, including provisions for women's representation, he questioned the sincerity and uniformity of the government's approach. He pointed out the lack of comparable action in other religious or community-based institutions. “If the intention is to empower women, that’s welcome. But why is this empowerment only being legislated for one community?”
He also echoed concerns raised by other opposition leaders like Abhishek Manu Singhvi about the potential for waqf properties to be usurped by non-community entities under the guise of adverse possession if litigation is not initiated within 12 years. This, he warned, could lead to a permanent loss of community-owned land, weakening waqf institutions over time and handing over historically significant properties to government or quasi-government bodies.
“The Constitution does not allow you to legislate discrimination into law,” he said. “This bill is not just about Waqf – it’s about what kind of India we want to shape.”
In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
