The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 was one of the main topics of discussion in the Indian Parliament on Wednesday. The debate on the bill lasted for almost 12 hours. Eventually, the bill was passed in the Lok Sabha in the early hours of Thursday. It was approved with 288 votes in favor and 232 against. This bill is now headed to the Rajya Sabha for further discussions. Therefore, people are keen to know what the Rajya Sabha has to say about this one of the leading discussions in the Indian Parliament in 2025.

Home Minister Criticizes Past Amendments

Union Minister Amit Shah stepped forward and deeply criticized the 2013 amendments to the Waqf laws. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was constructed when Congress was leading the UPA government. He accused the previous alterations of the Waqf Laws of several political reasons and claimed that they were aimed at making peace with certain groups or communities. He further warned that the opposition was spreading misconceptions about the Waqf Bill.

Support and Opposition

The debate over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 was heated. Several claims and counter-claims were exchanged between the government and the opposition. The bill was introduced by the government, which pleaded that the existing Waqf laws needed to be updated. The government stated that the 2013 amendments were made due to political reasons. On the other hand, the opposition, mainly the INDIA bloc, argued that the bill was unconstitutional and would harm minority communities.

The Bill’s Key Provisions and Controversies

The primary aim of this bill is to make the Waqf management system of India more transparent and efficient. It suggests the inclusion of non-Muslim experts on Waqf boards, which led to strong opposition from some political parties.

The bill also seeks to expand the government’s role in regulating Waqf properties. Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is one who presented the bill and also clarified that non-Muslims would only act as experts in administrative matters and not in religious affairs. This point was strongly doubted by some members, including Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi, who argued that the bill would harm the rights of minorities and weaken the Constitution.

Heated Exchange About Waqf Property Concerns

One of the most significant points of disagreement was the involvement of Non-Muslims in Waqf boards. As the government said that this was done to make the boards more inclusive and secular, the opposition was worried that it could lead to interference in religious affairs. AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi also opposed the bill and called it an unfair law and arguing that it would allow them to take over Waqf properties.

Kiren Rijiju’s Defense and Final Remarks

After hours of intense debate, Kiren Rijiju defended the bill and rejected accusations from the opposition that it was unconstitutional. He highlighted that India has always been a safe place for Muslims and that the bill would not harm the Muslim community. When talking about Indian Muslim law for property, he pointed out that minorities from countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan have always found refuge in India.

Multiple Voting Rounds and Final Approval

Waqf (Amendment) Bill Cleared in Lok Sabha

After Rijiju’s final statements, the Parliament held several rounds of voting on different aspects of the bill. The process was extremely lengthy, but eventually, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 was passed in the Lok Sabha at around 1:57 am. Another related bill, the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, was also passed.

Next Step: Rajya Sabha Debate

As the bill has passed the Lok Sabha, it will now be handed over to the Rajya Sabha, where another long debate is expected. The government hopes that the bill will be approved there as well and will help to expand the government’s role in regulating Waqf properties and providing better management of the Waqf management system in India.

People of India are closely watching whether the Rajya Sabha will support the bill or if further amendments will be made. Regardless of the outcome, this argument stresses the continuing tensions between the requirement for government surveillance and the protection of minority rights in India’s complicated legal and political landscape.