Control in the name of reform over what is private violates freedom of religion. The Waqf system is part of the religious faith of Muslims

The passage of the contentious Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 in the two Houses of Parliament after two days of marathon debates in both chambers has created a lot of noise and arguments over the legislation. The BJP, its supporters and the TV media have hailed the Waqf Bill, now an Act, as a much-needed reform of the Waqf system that will ensure transparency and better management of Waqf properties. But the Opposition, Muslim organisations, religious scholars, legal experts, and ordinary Muslims call it a violation of the minority community’s constitutional rights. 

A clutch of petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act, which the court will hear on April 16, argue that the new law violates the Court’s own pronouncements of “once a Waqf, always a Waqf” to deprive the Muslim community of age-old tracts of Waqf lands and facilitate their conversion to private or government property.

Pleas by some organisations point out that at the heart of the controversial law is an attempt to stamp control over huge tracts of Waqf properties. They contend that the Act breaches the SC’s 1954 judgement which held that “transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights”. 

Parliament’s law-making authority with respect to Waqf, or any other matter, is beyond doubt. But what is problematic is the increasing tendency to enact laws on ideological grounds that are perceived as political measures aimed at targeting and weakening a particular community. In a democracy, no law can be considered fair if it is framed without proper consultations, aggrieves an entire community and is passed on the strength of the majority. Parliamentary majority and political morality are two different things. A parliamentary majority, while essential for governing, needs to be restrained through constitutional ethics and public morality. 

If your guide to understanding the Waqf Bill and its working is only the PIB press release and TV debates or what the BJP leaders said in Parliament, then you will see it as a “progressive and fair framework for Waqf administration in India”. The official view is that while Waqf properties serve religious and charitable purposes, the role of Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, which administer and manage Waqf properties, is not religious but regulatory.

The question is whether the proposed changes being asked of Waqf will also be extended to temple boards and Sikh and Christian religious properties. It is important to note here that Article 26 of the Constitution gives religious denominations the right to own and manage their religious properties.

Several concerns about the Bill have been flagged by the Opposition and the minority community leaders, who have raised questions over some of the Bill provisions aimed at treating the Waqf properties differently from religious properties of other communities. For instance, the bizarre provision that a Muslim can make a Waqf only if he has been practising Islam for five years.

Another problematic provision in the Act is denying non-Muslims the right to do Waqf when an owner of a property should have the freedom to do whatever he wants with his property. The inclusion of non-Muslims on the Waqf boards is also problematic, given that similar organisations attached to other communities have kept membership exclusive to those communities only. 

It will be unfair to say that the Waqf system is perfect and is functioning flawlessly. On the contrary, it needs reforms to make it accountable for the administration of the Waqf properties. Opaqueness about how the Waqf revenue is spent for charitable and welfare activities of the Muslim community needs transparency and regulatory oversight. But control in the name of reform over what is private and charitable violates freedom of religion; the Waqf system is part of the religious faith and practice of the minority community, the same as the religious practices of other communities.

The government has claimed that the Waqf Amendment Bill is in the interest of the community, as it empowers Muslim women and will benefit poor Muslims. But it has not explained how the proposed changes to the Waqf Act of 1995 will benefit them. The deliberations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which scrutinised the bill, were not only controversial, but the suggestions made by JPC members belonging to the opposition parties were also not accepted. 

The political and ideological motives to control the Waqf system are evident in measures which are supposed to improve the efficiency of the Waqf broads but weaken the regulatory authority of both Waqf boards and the adjudicatory Waqf tribunals. The move to replace the survey commissioners, who are specialist government servants, with a district magistrate and the powers given to district collectors, who would recommend to the government whether the Waqf’s claim to a property is valid, undermines the powers of the Waqf boards and Waqf tribunals. By imposing restrictions on Waqf, which are not part of the governance of other religious endowments, the Muslim’s fear that the Waqf Act, instead of addressing the community’s concerns, could take away the role of Muslims in controlling Waqf properties is not entirely unfounded.