Waqf Amendment Act Sparks Uproar: 7 Alarming Reasons Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind Calls It a “Devastating Overreach”

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has denounced India’s Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as unconstitutional, arguing it undermines Muslim religious rights by abolishing “waqf by user”—a provision protecting undocumented historical religious sites, jeopardizing over 400,000 properties. The law mandates non-Muslim representation in waqf governance bodies, which critics claim violates constitutional safeguards (Articles 14, 15, 21, 25–26, 29) granting minorities autonomy over religious institutions.

The group, led by Maulana Mahmood Madani, has challenged the Act in the Supreme Court, framing it as systemic marginalization of Muslim heritage. While proponents cite transparency reforms, opponents allege the law enables state overreach into Islamic endowments, deepening fears of erasure amid rising cultural majoritarianism. The controversy has ignited protests and political clashes, reflecting broader tensions over secularism and minority rights in India.

The outcome may redefine the balance between religious autonomy and state authority, with implications for pluralism in the world’s largest democracy. 

Waqf Amendment Act Sparks Uproar: 7 Alarming Reasons Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind Calls It a “Devastating Overreach”

In a bold stance against India’s newly enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, one of the country’s leading Muslim organizations, has labeled the legislation a “blatant assault” on religious freedom and constitutional principles. The Working Committee of the organization, following an urgent meeting, issued a scathing critique of the law, arguing it undermines the autonomy of Islamic charitable endowments (waqf) and entrenches “majoritarian domination” over minority institutions.  

What’s Driving the Outcry? 

The Waqf system, rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, governs religious and charitable properties dedicated to community welfare. With over 800,000 registered waqf properties nationwide—ranging from mosques and schools to hospitals—the institution holds immense cultural, religious, and economic significance for Indian Muslims. The 2025 amendments, however, have ignited fears of state overreach and erasure of historical claims.  

Key objections raised by the Jamiat include:  

• Abolition of “Waqf by User”: This provision nullifies the recognition of properties historically used as waqf sites but lacking formal documentation. The Jamiat claims this jeopardizes over 400,000 such properties, including centuries-old mosques and shrines, effectively rewriting communal heritage.  

• Non-Muslim Dominance in Governance: The Act mandates significant non-Muslim representation in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Critics argue this violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious groups the right to manage their own affairs.  

• Constitutional Violations: The Jamiat asserts the law breaches Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (life and liberty), 25–26 (religious freedom), 29 (cultural rights), and 300-A (property rights), framing it as a systemic erosion of minority safeguards. 

A Clash of Narratives 

While the government has yet to issue a detailed rebuttal, proponents of the amendments suggest they aim to enhance transparency and prevent mismanagement within waqf boards, which control assets worth an estimated ₹1.2 lakh crore. Past audits have revealed instances of illegal encroachments and lease irregularities, fueling calls for reform.  

However, the Jamiat dismisses these justifications as pretextual. “This isn’t about accountability—it’s about control,” remarked Maulana Mahmood Madani, the organization’s president. “By dismantling ‘waqf by user’ and inserting outsiders into decision-making roles, the state is erasing our legacy and silencing our voice.”  

Legal Battle and Political Repercussions 

The controversy has moved to the Supreme Court, where Madani has filed a petition challenging the Act’s constitutionality. The case is poised to test the judiciary’s stance on balancing state intervention with religious autonomy. Meanwhile, opposition parties have seized the moment, accusing the ruling government of weaponizing legislation to marginalize Muslims, who comprise 14% of India’s population.  

The Jamiat has also called for nationwide peaceful protests, urging communities to avoid violence that could “weaken the movement.” This appeal follows reports of clashes in states like West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, where demonstrations against the Act have turned tense.  

Broader Implications for Secularism 

The dispute underscores a deepening rift in India’s secular fabric. Critics argue the amendments align with a broader pattern of majoritarian policymaking, citing recent debates over hijab bans, mosque disputes, and citizenship laws. For Muslim communities, waqf properties are not merely assets but pillars of identity—a fact the Jamiat emphasizes in its demand for “legislation that protects, not plunders.”  

The Road Ahead 

As legal proceedings unfold, the Jamiat’s resolve highlights a critical question: Can India’s pluralistic ethos coexist with centralized governance of religious institutions? The outcome may set a precedent for how the world’s largest democracy navigates minority rights in an era of rising cultural nationalism.  

For now, the call to repeal the Act resonates beyond courtrooms and parliamentary halls, echoing in mosques and madrassas as a rallying cry for preserving heritage against what many perceive as existential threat.