Rajya Sabha

Trending Today Rajya Sabha Adopts Bill 2025 for Waqf (Amendment) Destruction in Kancha Gachibowli ‘forest’ area depicts an ‘alarming picture’, says SC NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute Actor Hansika Motwani files a motion in the Bombay High Court to quash a FIR after being booked in a Section 498A case. Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Union Minister Kiren Rijiju: The Waqf Amendment Bill Is Prospective Rather Than Retrospective Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Rajya Sabha Adopts Bill 2025 for Waqf (Amendment) MAHI SINHA 05 Apr 2025 Update: 04 Apr 2025 After a discussion that lasted more than 14 hours, the Rajya Sabha enacted the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 at around 2.22 AM on April 4, after midnight. The law received 128 votes in favor and 95 votes against it. Abstention did not exist. On April 3, the Lok Sabha approved the bill. It is currently awaiting the President of India‘s approval to become legislation. Waqf is a person’s ongoing commitment to any cause that is accepted by Muslim law as benevolent, religious, or pious. On August 8 of last year, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was presented to the Lok Sabha. In order to modernize waqf administration, lower litigation, and guarantee the effective management of waqf holdings, some 40 revisions were recommended to the current Waqf Act, 1995 (as revised in 2013). It was turned over to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for a more thorough examination of the suggested modifications following strong opposition criticism. With certain modifications, the Bill has essentially been approved by the JPC. The government and its members made it clear during the discussion on Thursday that the Act aims to guarantee efficient administration of waqf property in order to guarantee that the money received from waqf is distributed fairly for the benefit of Muslims. Kiren Rijiju explained that the user’s provide of waqf is prospective in nature and said that the Government has adopted some of the JPC’s recommendations. Amit Shah of the Ministry of Home Affairs also provided clarification on this. Shah made sure that no one would meddle in Muslims’ religious matters. The Bill seeks to increase efficiency, accountability, and openness, Rijiju noted today. The Waqf Board is only a legal entity, plain and simple, and not an autonomous body of the Muslim body, according to the Kerala High Court‘s ruling in “Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs. Union of India And Ors,” which he referenced. Rijiju defended the choice to include two non-Muslim members, saying that the government has no intention of meddling in religious matters and only wants to make the ruling party more secular. Hazif Mohd Zafar Ahmd v. UP Central Sunni Board of Waqf, another Allahabad High Court ruling that noted that Mutawalli’s function is secular and not a religious ritual, was also mentioned by Rijiju. The federal government guided the 2013 modification introduced during the Indian National Congress‘s longevity,” said House Leader JP Nadda today. However, the government discovered in 2020–21 that the waqf property had only grown by 18 lac hectares between 1913 and 2013, while 21 lac hectares of waqf assets were added between 2013 and 2025. The government introduced this bill to make sure it wasn’t abused. Nadda said that because the 2013 amendment gave the waqf board exceptional powers, it seemed to override the nation’s constitutional structure. He said that it turned into a harsh legislation. He cited Section 40 of the Parent Act in particular, stating that the Waqf Board has the authority to determine whether a property qualified as a waqf asset on its own. Additionally, he cited the clause that prohibited residents from contesting the waqf tribunal’s ruling in ordinary courts, claiming that this was against Article 21. Additionally, Section 54 was cited, which, in Nadda’s opinion, permitted the Tribunal’s decision to remove the encroachment. In contrast, civil courts were prohibited from pursuing any legal action under Sections 5 and 6 of the Parent Act. The Leader of the Opposition, Mallikarjun Kharge, queried why, if the government wants the wellbeing of Muslims, it has halted five programs that assist them. Additionally, he stated that the Ministry of Minority Affairs funding is still being cut by the governing body. Kharge noted that the Government initially granted the Collector jurisdiction and then transferred that authority to a designated State official above the Collector’s legitimacy, rather than the Survey Inspector doing an initial investigation into the waqf land. The opponents claimed that the government was attempting to split the populace along religious lines and criticized the bill for breaching Article 25 of the Constitution. A few members also had concerns about how the JPC operated. According to Dr. Syed Naseer Hussain, the government welcomed non-stakeholders for the first time today since they were aware that the vast majority of people opposed the proposal. According to Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the Bill blatantly disregards Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He went on to say that he has participated in some important cases, including those involving the Sabarimala temple and the Dawoodi Bohra community, and in these rulings, the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that a custom or execute fully falls under the safeguards of fundamental rights provided by Articles 25 and 26 once it is deemed a necessary part of religion. Singhvi cited Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, saying that a statute that completely removes a religious denomination’s administrative power and transfers it to a different, more secular body would violate Article 26 rights. Singhvi of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. The State of Rajasthan also cited this