• The main contention around the Waqf Bill, 2025 stems from doubts about the necessity of introducing a new law that alters the current framework for managing Waqf properties.
  — AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi criticized the Bill, claiming it undermines the principles of Waqf governance and erodes Muslim community rights.
  — In contrast, government officials argue that the Waqf Act of 1995 contains several shortcomings—particularly relating to title disputes and encroachments—which necessitate a comprehensive overhaul.
  — They also highlight the absence of judicial scrutiny in the current system, as matters concerning Waqf properties are decided by Waqf Tribunals, whose rulings are not subject to court review.
  — Additionally, the Bill is being introduced while the constitutional validity of the existing Waqf Act is under legal scrutiny in the Delhi High Court.

• A prominent criticism is that the Bill increases governmental authority over Waqf property management, including determining whether a property qualifies as Waqf.
  — Section 40 of the existing Act allows Waqf Boards to make this determination, with their decisions being final unless altered by the Waqf Tribunal.
  — The proposed legislation shifts this authority to District Collectors and specifies that until a government decision is made, contested properties will be treated as government-owned, not Waqf.

• Officials claim this change is aimed at curbing the alleged misuse of Waqf laws. They argue that Section 40 has been exploited to wrongly designate private assets as Waqf, leading to prolonged disputes and tensions.

• Traditionally, Islamic law permitted verbal declarations of Waqf. Even without formal documentation, properties like mosques used continuously for religious purposes were considered Waqf.
  — The Bill seeks to eliminate the idea of "Waqf by use," meaning a property cannot be considered Waqf solely based on its usage if it lacks formal documentation like a Waqfnama.

• The existing 1995 Act calls for a survey of Waqf properties by a Survey Commissioner appointed by the state. The proposed Bill replaces this role with the District Collector or another senior official nominated by them.
  — This change is justified by the government as a response to inefficiencies in state-level surveys. For instance, surveys in states like Gujarat and Uttarakhand haven’t started, and in Uttar Pradesh, a survey initiated in 2014 remains incomplete.

• Another point of contention is the proposed alteration in Waqf Board composition.
  — The Bill permits the inclusion of non-Muslim Chief Executive Officers and at least two non-Muslim members, nominated by the state government.
  — Critics say this compromises the community’s autonomy in managing its religious and charitable trusts, while officials argue it enhances transparency and introduces administrative expertise. They emphasize that Muslims will continue to form the majority on the Board.

• The Bill also proposes to remove Section 107 of the 1995 Act, which excluded Waqf properties from the scope of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  — This section allowed Waqf Boards to initiate legal proceedings for reclaiming properties beyond the usual 12-year limit. With its removal, the Boards may now be restricted by the statutory limitation period.

• Addressing criticisms from opposition parties, Union Home Minister Amit Shah asserted that the government’s intention is not to interfere in religious practices, but to introduce reforms aimed at benefiting underprivileged Muslims, particularly women.
  — Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, who introduced the Bill, said it was inclusive in nature—ensuring representation from Shia and Sunni sects, backward Muslims, women, and non-Muslim experts.
  — Rijiju emphasized the need for gender inclusivity, noting the historic lack of female representation in Waqf Boards.

• The Bill, first introduced in August last year, was later examined by a parliamentary panel chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. On February 27, the committee approved 14 proposed amendments, all of which were moved by BJP and NDA members

US-India 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of national and international Significance

For Mains Examination: GS II - International relations and agreements

Context:

Two decades after it was inked, decks have been cleared to tap the commercial potential of the India-US civil nuclear deal with an unprecedented regulatory clearance from the US Department of Energy (DoE) that will allow a US company to build and design nuclear reactors in India

Read about:

US-India 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement

What are the areas of cooperation between India and the US?

Key takeaways:

• The four-day India-US trade discussions concluded on Saturday, achieving significant alignment on the framework of a potential trade agreement. However, the Terms of Reference (ToR), which define the objectives and scope of a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) and initiate formal negotiations, were not finalized, according to a government official cited by The Indian Express.

• In a statement following the talks, India’s Commerce and Industry Ministry stated that both nations had reached a “broad understanding” on the next steps toward finalizing a bilateral trade agreement by the fall. However, the statement did not clarify whether any concessions would be made regarding President Donald Trump’s decision to impose reciprocal tariffs starting April 2, which Indian industries had been anticipating.

• The US has already imposed a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum and is set to introduce tariffs on automobiles and auto parts from April 3. Indian steel exporters have informed the government that these tariffs have impacted nearly $5 billion worth of exports, while auto-component exporters are concerned that selective exemptions could jeopardize India’s $7 billion worth of exports to the US.

• The 123 Agreement, signed between India and the US in July 2007, aimed to facilitate full-scale civil nuclear cooperation, covering nuclear reactors and various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing. However, progress has stalled since then, with no significant investments materializing.

• On the Indian side, legal challenges have also posed hurdles. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which establishes a framework for compensating victims of nuclear accidents and outlines liability allocation procedures, has deterred foreign firms such as GE-Hitachi, Westinghouse, and Areva. These companies have raised concerns that the legislation directs liability toward equipment suppliers, making them hesitant to invest due to potential future risks.

• Additionally, amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 are necessary to allow private companies to operate nuclear power plants, a role currently restricted to state-owned entities. The Indian government has committed to facilitating these changes.

• On March 26, the US Department of Energy (DoE) approved Holtec International’s request for specific authorization concerning the restrictive regulation known as "10CFR810" (Part 810 of Title 10, US Atomic Energy Act of 1954). This authorization permits Holtec, under certain conditions, to transfer “unclassified small modular reactor (SMR) technology” to three Indian companies.

• Previously, this regulation allowed US firms, including Holtec, to export nuclear equipment to India under strict safeguards but prohibited them from manufacturing nuclear components or conducting nuclear design work within India. From New Delhi’s perspective, this restriction was a major obstacle, as India sought to participate in manufacturing SMRs and co-producing nuclear components for its domestic energy needs.

• This development comes just weeks after the two nations reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening nuclear cooperation under the US-India 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement, marking a significant diplomatic achievement for India.

• Given the Trump administration’s transactional approach to trade deficits and US manufacturing support, the agreement to move forward with the joint construction of US-designed nuclear reactors in India—through large-scale localization and potential technology transfers—is seen as a crucial diplomatic win for New Delhi.

• The deal also provides an opportunity for India’s nuclear sector to modernize its reactor technology, bringing it in line with global standards while accelerating capacity expansion, which has been progressing at a slow pace.

• Another key aspect of the agreement is leveraging private sector expertise to enter the growing SMR market. While India has experience in manufacturing smaller reactor types, such as 220MWe pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), its primary challenge lies in reactor technology.

• India’s reliance on PHWRs, which use heavy water and natural uranium, has put it at odds with the global nuclear industry, where pressurized water reactors (PWRs) dominate. PWRs, a type of light-water nuclear reactor, are the most widely used worldwide.

• Holtec International, a privately-held company and a leading global supplier of nuclear capital components, has been at the forefront of nuclear plant decommissioning. Its involvement in India’s nuclear sector marks a major step forward in fostering advanced nuclear cooperation between the two countries