The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in Parliament has ignited widespread debate, raising crucial constitutional questions and provoking unease within sections of the Muslim community. Framed by the government as a move to ensure transparency and better administration of waqf properties, critics argue it may erode minority rights and centralise control in a manner that undermines the very spirit of waqf — an Islamic charitable endowment that is, by definition, community-driven and autonomous. The original Waqf Act of 1995, enacted during the Congress government, provided the legal framework for the administration of waqf properties in India. It set up State Waqf Boards and a Central Waqf Council, allowing for local and community participation in the management of mosques, dargahs, graveyards, and other religious or charitable institutions. Importantly, it offered protections to ensure that waqf properties remained within the fold of the community and were safeguarded from encroachments or arbitrary government interference.
ALSO READ: Crab Mentality And The Riyan Parag Phenomenon: A Reflection On Assam’s Sporting Culture
The new amendments, however, introduce sweeping changes that shift significant powers toward the central government. Among the most contentious provisions is the increased role of the Centre in determining the “public purpose” for which waqf properties may be acquired. Critics warn that this could legitimise the acquisition of waqf land under the guise of development or infrastructure projects, bypassing the consultative process with State Waqf Boards or community stakeholders. Another key change is the restructuring of how waqf properties are notified, contested, or de-notified — potentially curbing the rights of individuals or organisations to legally challenge decisions affecting these properties. This sounds alarm bells not just for Muslims, but for all who value judicial review and due process under India’s constitutional framework.
Muslim organisations, religious leaders, and civil rights activists have voiced concern that the Bill was pushed through without adequate consultation. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has argued that the amendments could lead to the “systematic erosion” of waqf property, which plays a critical role in funding religious, educational, and welfare institutions within the community. More broadly, the Bill poses a constitutional question — to what extent can the state intervene in the religious affairs of a community, especially when Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and property? Legal scholars have pointed out that excessive state control may violate this fundamental right and could be challenged in court.
Supporters of the Bill argue that waqf boards have often been marred by mismanagement and corruption, and a centralised mechanism may bring accountability. However, centralisation without representation can be as dangerous as misgovernance itself. In a plural democracy like India, legislative changes involving religious institutions must be approached with sensitivity, transparency, and inclusivity. The Waqf Amendment Bill, in its current form, risks alienating a community rather than empowering it. Parliament must reconsider the implications, and if genuine reform is the intent, it must be carried out with the confidence and cooperation of those most affected.