The comprehensive analysis concludes that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which renames the principal legislation to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 1995, successfully addresses critical historical administrative and financial failings concerning Mutawalli (Waqf manager) accountability. This success is achieved through several structural mechanisms: the acceleration of removal procedures under the amended Section 64, the enforcement of stringent compliance standards, and the introduction of robust judicial review via the appellate provisions of Section 83(9). The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has introduced one of the most contentious legislative changes in the history of Islamic endowment law in India by prospectively abolishing the concept of Waqf by User (Section 4(ix)(b)). Historically recognized as a dedication based on long-standing communal use rather than formal documentation, this doctrine provided a mechanism for recognizing properties dedicated through custom. This paper conducts a constitutional analysis of this abolition, weighing the claims of infringement on religious freedom (Articles 25 and 26) against the State’s justification based on administrative necessity, curbing systemic property encroachment, and promoting transparency. Judicial observations at the interim stage indicate a prima facie acceptance of the State’s argument that the measure is a necessary and non-arbitrary exercise of legislative power aimed at correcting historical mismanagement and property fraud. One example cited is the disproportionate burden related to evidentiary requirements. Islamic law historically recognized the validity of oral contracts and testimonies in establishing a Waqf. However, the 2025 Act imposes stringent documentation and registration requirements, implicitly excluding traditional oral Waqfs. Critics point out that no such centralized or disproportionate burdens exist under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) Acts, which govern similar charitable properties. This differential treatment, where one religious endowment is singled out for intrusive regulation and stringent documentation requirements not paralleled in other religious trusts, is alleged to breach the constitutional guarantee of equality. Petitioners contend that the 1995 Act, and its subsequent amendments, operate like “external Muslim invaders looting properties of other communities,” breaching Articles 25, 26, 29, and 300A, and manifesting hostile discrimination under Articles 14 and 15. Legally, a valid waqf requires a founder who donates the ownership of the property in the name of Allah, and that property is used for poor students, mosques, and hospitals. The 3 core principles of this organization are permanence, immutability, and non-transferability.  Historically, waqf has played an important role in Muslim society. Waqf represents a unique Islamic model that combines spiritual merit with long-term social capital formation. The concept of Waqf occupies a significant place in Islamic jurisprudence as a unique form of charitable endowment.