– Mohd. Naushad Khan
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 has faced huge criticism from opposition parties, Muslim leaders, and civil society groups. Critics argue that the Bill infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly Article 26, which grants religious communities the freedom to manage their own affairs. The inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council is viewed as unwarranted interference in Muslim religious matters. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) contends that this move undermines the religious character of Waqf institutions, which are meant to serve Islamic charitable purposes. Some members of Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) have criticised the committee’s approach as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘contrary to constitutional and democratic principles’. They argue that the JPC’s role should be to reform rather than to curtail the rights of Muslims enshrined in the Constitution.
Prof. Jagmohan Singh, Convener of Sikh Personal Law Board, stated, “The Waqf Amendment Bill must be withdrawn; government interference in religious affairs is highly condemnable. The Bill raises serious concerns not only for Muslims but also for other minority communities, including Sikhs. I strongly believe that, based on the principles of equality and religious tolerance, we must oppose provisions that grant disproportionate control over religious endowments to the state. The interference of non-Muslims in Waqf affairs through administrative officials, as proposed in the amendments, threatens the autonomy of faith-based institutions and sets a dangerous precedent for all communities.”
He further added, “I stand with the Muslim community not out of expediency but out of a commitment rooted in the teachings of our Gurus, which urge Sikhs to stand for justice and resist state persecution. True secularism demands equal treatment and protection of every community’s right to manage its own institutions without interference. Sikhs oppose this bill to safeguard pluralistic values and interfaith harmony.”
Narender Nagarwal, law professor at the University of Delhi, remarked, “The Waqf Amendment Bill raises significant constitutional concerns and perpetuates systemic discrimination against India’s Muslim minority. This Bill is part of a series of legislative measures introduced since 2014 that many argue are unconstitutional, unlawful, and discriminatory – such as the CAA, NJAC, NEP, and UAPA. The current regime appears to be eroding constitutional propriety, the rule of law, and fundamental rights.”
He further argued, “Under the pretence of eliminating encroachments, this Bill flagrantly violates basic rights and religious autonomy protected by Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution. Its provisions blatantly contradict the secular ethos, the constitutional philosophy of minority rights, and the doctrine of basic structure established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. Specifically, the Bill appears discriminatory and targeted, serving as a pretext for the state to seize Waqf properties. It is a form of state-sponsored lawlessness, seemingly endorsed by the judiciary. Furthermore, the government is disseminating misleading information through its media allies to downplay the concerns of minority communities and civil society.”
He added, “The government’s claim that approximately 25% of Waqf properties encroach on government land is baseless and lacks empirical evidence or judicial validation. This assertion renders the state’s actions arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, which upholds equality before the law. The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, held that state actions lacking a rational connection to their intended objectives are unconstitutional. By leveraging unverified allegations to strip Waqf Boards of their properties, the state is egregiously violating due process as outlined in Articles 14, 19, and 21.”
Congress MP Mohammad Jawed stated that he had opposed the JPC and would continue to do so in Parliament. Another Congress MP, Imran Masood, declared, “We will fight this from Parliament to the streets. We strongly opposed the JPC and won’t allow the Waqf Amendment Bill to become law.”
A closer examination of the Bill reveals grave concerns regarding Waqf administration. While it ostensibly enhances the authority of State Waqf Boards, it actually diminishes their powers. Responsibilities such as determining Waqf property status, removing encroachments, and registering Waqf assets have been shifted to revenue officials, raising concerns about oversight and the protection of Waqf interests. Also, the Bill proposes renaming the Act from “The Waqf Act, 1995” to “The Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.” This renaming appears unnecessary and distracts from substantive issues.
The Bill selectively aims to nominate non-Muslims to Waqf Boards while prohibiting them from creating or donating to a Waqf. It introduces new sections (3A, 3B, and 3C), largely altering the nature of Waqfs and Waqf administration.
One of the most contentious provisions is the induction of non-Muslim members into the Central Waqf Council, which critics argue violates Articles 25 and 26, guaranteeing religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The Waqf Council is specifically tasked with administering Islamic charitable endowments under Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). Allowing non-Muslim members is seen as a dilution of its religious character, especially when compared to Hindu temples, Sikh Gurdwaras, and Christian churches, which retain exclusive religious administration. This perceived discrimination based on religion violates Articles 14 and 15(1), which prohibit such actions.
Another controversial aspect is the Bill’s provision granting DMs sweeping authority to adjudicate Waqf property disputes, effectively bypassing judicial oversight. This move undermines the expertise of Waqf Boards and the rights of the Muslims to manage their own religious affairs. Such centralisation of power contravenes Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations autonomy in managing their properties. In Ratilal Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1950), the Supreme Court ruled that state interference in religious administration must meet the proportionality test – something this Bill disregards. By transferring control to bureaucrats, the Bill further violates Article 30, which grants minorities the right to govern their institutions free from state interference.
Nagarwal expressed concern over the judiciary’s silence on the Bill, stating, “The Supreme Court is duty-bound to strike down legislation that infringes on fundamental rights. Many provisions of the Waqf Bill violate the rule of law, constitutional secularism, minority rights, and international conventions like the UN Declaration on Minority Rights (1992). The judiciary must stop the executive from committing these violations of laws.”
The Waqf Amendment Bill represents more than a legal amendment; it signals an erosion of India’s secular framework. By diminishing minority rights and enabling majoritarian control, the Bill contradicts the constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom. The government must withdraw this Bill, and the judiciary must fulfil its duty to uphold minority rights and constitutional integrity.
