Waqf Amendment Bill: Reform or Rights Infringement?
The Waqf Amendment Bill has quickly become one of the most contentious legislative proposals in India today. Proposed by the ruling government and passed in the Lok Sabha amid heated debates, the Bill promises sweeping reforms in the management and regulation of waqf properties—a subject deeply interwoven with the country’s rich Islamic heritage and the constitutional rights of its Muslim minority.
In this blog post, we will explore the origins of the waqf system, the significant changes proposed by the Amendment Bill, the government's rationale for these reforms, and the fierce criticisms raised by opposition parties and community leaders.
Understanding Waqf: Historical and Social Significance
Waqf refers to the permanent dedication of property—whether movable or immovable—for religious, charitable, or pious purposes under Islamic law. Historically, waqfs have played a vital role in funding mosques, madrasas, hospitals, and other community welfare initiatives. In India, waqf properties cover vast areas and are estimated to be worth billions of dollars, supporting not only religious institutions but also providing crucial social services to the Muslim community.
These endowments have evolved over centuries—from the times of early Muslim rule, through the Mughal era, and into the modern period under British legislation. The current legal framework, primarily governed by the Waqf Act of 1995, has attempted to regulate and manage these properties. However, decades of mismanagement, encroachments, and disputes have underscored the need for reform.
Key Provisions of the Waqf Amendment Bill
The Waqf Amendment Bill, introduced in 2024 and passed in the Lok Sabha in early April 2025, proposes several notable changes:
1. Revised Criteria for Creating a Waqf
-
Practice Requirement:
The Bill stipulates that only individuals who have been practicing Islam for at least five years may declare a waqf. This measure, intended to formalize the process, has raised questions about its fairness and whether it might exclude recent converts or those who have long participated in the community without formal credentials.
-
Elimination of ‘Waqf by User’:
Traditionally, a property could be recognized as a waqf by virtue of its long-term use. The Bill removes this provision for future cases, though properties already registered under this concept are protected unless contested. This change is designed to curb ambiguities in property status but may leave some community-managed assets vulnerable.
2. Enhanced Survey and Management of Waqf Properties
-
Shift in Survey Authority:
The amendment transfers the responsibility of surveying waqf properties from a dedicated Survey Commissioner to the District Collector or another officer of equivalent rank. This is aimed at improving the accuracy of property records and reducing the number of unaccounted or mismanaged waqf assets.
-
Digital Registration:
A centralized digital portal is mandated for registering and updating all waqf properties. By modernizing record-keeping, the government hopes to bring transparency and ease the management of these assets.
3. Changes in the Governance Structure
-
Composition of Waqf Boards and Councils:
One of the most controversial aspects of the Bill is the proposed change in the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. The amendment now allows non-Muslim members to be part—and potentially even the majority—of these bodies. Government officials argue this will bring in expertise and enhance transparency; however, critics see it as an erosion of the community’s right to self-govern its religious endowments.
-
Reformed Tribunal Structure:
The Bill alters the structure of the Waqf Tribunals by removing the requirement to have an expert in Muslim law. Furthermore, it provides for an appeal process in which decisions can be challenged in the High Court within 90 days, thereby opening the door for more judicial oversight.
4. Government Oversight on Disputed Properties
- Role of the Collector:
In cases of disputed waqf properties, the Bill empowers senior government officials—specifically the District Collector or an officer of higher rank—to decide whether a property remains a waqf or should be reclassified as government property. This transfer of authority is seen by the government as a necessary step to combat widespread misuse of waqf laws, yet it also raises concerns about increased state interference in matters that have traditionally been managed by the community.
5. Application of the Limitation Act
- Adverse Possession:
The amendment removes certain exemptions (notably Section 107) that previously kept waqf properties immune from the Limitation Act, 1963. This change could enable individuals who have occupied waqf land for over 12 years to claim ownership through adverse possession—a move that many see as undermining the very concept of waqf as a permanent, irrevocable endowment.
The Government’s Rationale
Government officials defend the Bill as a long-overdue reform needed to address chronic issues within the waqf system:
-
Curbing Mismanagement and Corruption:
Proponents argue that decades of mismanagement, land encroachments, and legal disputes have rendered the current system inefficient. By introducing digital registration, clearer survey protocols, and judicial oversight, the government claims that the Bill will ensure that waqf properties are used for their intended charitable and religious purposes.
-
Enhancing Transparency:
The inclusion of non-Muslim members and the reformed appellate process are touted as measures to bring in accountability and technical expertise—mirroring the governance models used in other religious and charitable institutions.
-
Standardizing Property Records:
A digital registry aims to resolve the widespread problem of incomplete or inaccurate records that has plagued waqf boards for years. This is seen as essential for unlocking the economic potential of these assets and ensuring they benefit the community.
Opposition and Controversies
The Bill has not been without its detractors. Critics—ranging from opposition political parties to prominent Muslim organizations—have voiced several concerns:
1. Erosion of Community Autonomy
Many argue that waqf properties have traditionally been managed by Muslim institutions under the guidance of Islamic law. By introducing non-Muslim members into the decision-making process, the Bill is seen as an intrusion into a community’s constitutional right to manage its own religious and charitable affairs.
2. Increased Government Control
The new role granted to government officials in adjudicating property disputes is perceived as a dangerous expansion of state power. Critics worry that this could lead to the arbitrary reclassification of waqf properties, effectively paving the way for potential land grabs and the marginalization of Muslim institutions.
3. Potential Loss of Traditional Assets
The deletion of protections—such as those provided by the Limitation Act exemptions—raises fears that encroachers might legally acquire historically significant waqf properties, including mosques, graveyards, and educational institutions.
4. Ambiguity Over “Waqf by User”
While the Bill protects existing “waqf by user” properties, its elimination for future cases introduces uncertainty. Many community-managed assets that have served their purpose for generations could lose their waqf status if not formally documented, potentially resulting in legal battles and social unrest.
5. Constitutional Concerns
Some legal experts and community leaders assert that the new requirements—such as the mandate that only those who have practiced Islam for a certain period can create a waqf—may contravene Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. These provisions could, they argue, unfairly discriminate against segments of the Muslim community.
Opinions from Across the Spectrum
Opinions on the Waqf Amendment Bill are deeply divided:
-
Government Support:
Officials and allied voices maintain that the Bill is a necessary corrective measure. They emphasize that enhanced transparency and digital governance are essential for preventing corruption and ensuring that waqf properties fulfill their intended social functions. -
Opposition Viewpoints:
Leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi and various opposition MPs argue that the Bill represents a calculated attempt to undermine Muslim autonomy and open the door for state intervention in religious affairs. They warn that the changes could lead to a slippery slope where minority rights are compromised in the name of administrative efficiency.
-
Legal and Social Analysts:
Many legal experts caution that while reform is necessary, any dilution of community control could have far-reaching consequences for the social fabric and religious freedom in India. The debate highlights the ongoing tension between modernization efforts and the protection of traditional rights—a balance that remains elusive in today’s polarized political climate.
Conclusion: A Crossroads for Reform
The Waqf Amendment Bill is more than just a legislative document—it is a reflection of the broader struggle between reform and tradition, state control and community autonomy, and modernization versus preservation of religious identity. While the government champions the Bill as a tool to inject transparency and curb long-standing mismanagement, its critics warn of potential risks to minority rights and communal harmony.
As India moves forward, the outcome of this debate will not only determine the future of millions of acres of religious endowments but may also set a precedent for how the state interacts with the cultural and religious institutions that have long defined its social landscape.
Only time will tell whether the reforms will lead to a more efficient and accountable system, or whether they will inadvertently erode the very foundations of a community’s self-governance.
0 Comments