Call of Lok Raj Sangathan, 12 May 2025
The recent amendments to the Waqf Act have sparked widespread opposition from political parties, rights organisation, legal experts, and several state governments. While the Union Government claims that the amendments are aimed at reforming and digitising Waqf administration, critics point to deeper, more troubling motives: the centralisation of control over Muslim religious endowments, erosion of minority rights, and a covert move to dispossess the Muslim community of its heritage and resources.
Historical Background
Waqf refers to a charitable endowment made under Islamic law, typically for religious, educational, or welfare purposes. In India, the first central Waqf legislation was enacted in 1954 and later replaced by the Waqf Act of 1995, which created a structure of State Waqf Boards and Waqf Tribunals. These were meant to ensure the protection and proper use of thousands of properties endowed over centuries for the community’s benefit.
Unlike Hindu religious institutions—mostly governed by state laws—Muslim waqf properties are uniquely governed by a central law, highlighting the uneven legal treatment of religious endowments. States like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka have separate laws to govern Hindu charitable institutions.
Key Provisions of the Earlier Act
- Allowed for waqf by usage (Waqf by user) based on long-term communal use of land or property for religious purposes, even without written documentation.
- The earlier law gave State Waqf Boards the power to manage Waqf properties, but if there was a dispute, people could still go to a special court called a tribunal for justice.
- Required formal registration of new waqf properties.
- Ensured representation from the Muslim community in the Board and Tribunal structures.
The Recent Amendments and Their Implications
The 2023 amendments, now being challenged in the Supreme Court, have introduced sweeping changes:
- Abolition of Waqf by Usage: This removes legal recognition from properties historically used for religious purposes without formal documentation. It threatens the status of centuries-old mosques, graveyards, and madrasas which may lack legal papers but have served the community for generations.
- Restrictions on Donors: The Act now prohibits non-Muslims from donating to waqf. This is a violation of private property rights and is unprecedented—there is no such restriction in other religious endowments, and historically, Muslim kings have donated to temples.
- Narrowing the Definition of a Muslim: Only those who have practiced Islam for five years are considered eligible in some contexts, contradicting the religion’s own inclusive doctrines and infringing on religious freedoms.
- Government Appointments to Waqf Boards: The amendments allow for the appointment of non-Muslims to Waqf Boards, a move seen as a means for the ruling party to plant its agents and gain indirect control over Muslim properties.
- Removal of Judicial Oversight: Waqf Tribunals—appointed by the government—are given near-exclusive authority to settle disputes, denying citizens access to regular courts. This undermines the basic constitutional right to judicial remedy.
Current Status
The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing multiple petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. These petitions argue that the new provisions infringe on the fundamental rights of the Muslim community to manage their religious and charitable endowments, as guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution. Responding to these concerns, a bench led by the Chief Justice has issued interim directions. The Court has stayed new appointments to both the Central and State Waqf Boards and has ordered that the character and usage of existing waqf properties—especially those recognised under the “waqf by user” principle—should not be altered while the case is under consideration.
The Central Government has defended the amendments, claiming they were passed after careful review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee and with due parliamentary debate. It argues that the changes are meant to improve transparency, curb misuse of waqf properties, and bring greater accountability.
The Supreme Court has clubbed all related petitions into a single case titled In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and is expected to resume hearing arguments in May. .
Response from State Governments and organisations
Several states and organisations have opposed these amendments.
The Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution urging the central government to withdraw the Waqf Amendment Act, even before its enactment. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized the Act, emphasizing that it infringes upon state rights and targets a specific community.
The Karnataka Legislative Assembly adopted a resolution opposing the Centre’s Waqf (Amendment) Bill. The state government argued that the amendments violate constitutional provisions and undermine the state’s authority over religious endowments. The opposition BJP walked out in protest during the resolution’s passage.
In Kerala, Muslim organizations have called upon both the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) and opposition parties to adopt a unified stance against the Waqf Amendment Act. The Kerala State Waqf Board has submitted a preliminary reply in the Supreme Court opposing the Act, arguing that it encroaches upon its authority.
The West Bengal Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee, announced that the Waqf Amendment Act would not be implemented in West Bengal. She described the legislation as a central government initiative and questioned the necessity of protests in the state, urging all communities to maintain peace.
On April 6, 2025, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act. The Board contends that the Act infringes upon the rights of the Muslim community to manage their religious endowments, as guaranteed under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution.
Critics question how the central government would respond if a state government made similar amendments to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts.
This selective intervention raises concerns about the concentration of powers in the central government and religious discrimination.
Criticism of the Act
Many critics view the amendments as part of a broader attack on minority and community rights:
- Centralisation of Religious Property: The government’s ability to define, digitise, and control waqf assets paves the way for future land takeovers under the pretext of “public purpose.”
- Marginalisation of Muslims: This fits into a larger plan—ranging from CAA and NRC to madrasa surveys—where Muslim institutions are increasingly monitored, restructured, or dismantled.
- Land Grab via Legal Redefinitions: By abolishing “waqf by usage,” the government undermines the principle that longstanding communal use confers legitimacy. This is especially troubling in a country where documentary evidence is often lacking for ancient properties.
- Diverting Public Attention: Propaganda around the “vast landholdings of Waqf Boards” and “lack of inheritance rights for Muslim women” are used to justify these actions, though these claims are often exaggerated or misleading.
A Call for Justice
At its heart, the Waqf Amendment controversy is not just about property—it is about the rights of Muslims in the Indian republic. It questions whether religious minorities can exercise equal rights under the Constitution or whether they must continuously prove their loyalty and relinquish control over their cultural and spiritual heritage.
Lok Raj Sangathan demands:
- Repeal of the recent amendments, especially those abolishing waqf by usage and restricting legal access.
- Restoration of community autonomy in managing religious endowments.
- An end to selective legal targeting of minorities in the name of reform.
The controversy surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Act is not just about a single community or a piece of legislation—it reflects the deeper rot in the present political system. Successive central governments, regardless of which party is in power, have consistently resorted to stoking communal divisions to deflect attention from the real issues faced by the people. The marginalisation of people has become entrenched: beyond casting their vote, people have no meaningful rights or power. The manner in which these amendments were bulldozed through Parliament, without consultation or consent from the very communities affected, makes it painfully clear that elected representatives are answerable only to their political parties and not to the people who elected them.
If we are to build a society where every community enjoys equal rights, where religious freedoms are respected, and where people—not parties—are empowered, then we need is a thorough transformation of the political system—one that guarantees accountability of elected representatives to the people who elected them, and a central role for people in decision-making. The Waqf Amendments must be opposed not just for what the ruling establishment is doing to a community, but for what they reveal about the dangers to the rights of people in the years to come.
Source of image: https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/anti-waqf-amendment-bill-march-to-delhi-on-nov-24-453248-2024-11-11
