Unwarranted interference?
The introduction of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in the Lok Sabha has ignited an intense debate between the government and opposition parties. The Bill, which seeks to reform the Waqf Act of 1995, has been presented by the government as a necessary step to usher in transparency and efficiency within the administration of waqf properties. The opposition parties, on the contrary, contend that the proposed amendments are a thinly veiled attempt to undermine Muslims’ religious rights and the federal structure of the Constitution.
The core of the controversy lies in the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Waqf Boards and the transferring of certain decision-making powers from Waqf tribunals to district collectors. Critics argue that these changes will likely erode the autonomy of Waqf Boards and infringe upon the religious freedoms of the Muslim community. The opposition's concerns are not without merit. The Waqf system, deeply rooted in Islamic tradition, has historically been managed by Muslims for the benefit of the community. The inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards raises questions about the appropriateness of allowing individuals who do not share the faith to make decisions on matters that are inherently religious. Such an interference is completely unsolicited—particularly in the absence of any concrete judicial re-interpretation.
Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has asserted that the amendments are necessary to address issues of corruption and inefficiency within the Waqf Boards. He pointed out that the proposed reforms were recommended by committees set up by previous Congress-led governments but were never implemented. According to Rijiju, the Bill aims to protect the interests of ordinary Muslims by preventing the misuse of Waqf properties by powerful individuals or groups. The minister claims to have been “privately told” by many opposition leaders that State Waqf Boards have “turned into a mafia”.
The opposition, on the contrary, has described the Bill as ‘draconian’ and accused the government of using it as a tool to polarise voters ahead of upcoming Assembly elections in Maharashtra and Haryana. The Bill’s proposal to empower district collectors to determine whether a property is Waqf or government land—a responsibility that previously rested with Waqf tribunals—has also come under considerable scrutiny. This shift in authority is seen by many as an attempt to centralise power and diminish the role of the Waqf Boards. The opposition has warned that this could lead to the wrongful appropriation of Waqf properties by the government.
Notably, the Waqf system plays a crucial role in maintaining the social and economic fabric of the Muslim community. Even if a reform is imperative, it must be undertaken with the utmost sensitivity and in consultation with all stakeholders. The essence of the matter lies in grasping the vulnerabilities and sensibilities on the ground, rather than manoeuvring the tenets of law and logic to force one’s way through majoritarian sentiments. The degree of resentment against the government's reform endeavour is mostly a result of arbitrariness of the Bill’s provisions; and partly that of mistrust it has earned in the Muslim and secular circles over its term. Winning the confidence of subjects becomes important before initiating big-ticket reforms. The debate over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill is indicative of broader concerns about the erosion of religious freedoms under the current government.
The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for scrutiny. It is expected that the JPC will propose a version that respects the religious rights of Muslims and upholds the tenet of federalism enshrined in the Constitution
