Govt’s affidavit on rise in Waqf assets not accurate, misleading: AIMPLB to SC

It argued that “the Executive” through the amendments “is seeking to impose its own subjective understanding about essentials of Islam upon the believers of Islam” and that the amended law “brings self-administration under the Waqf Act to a grinding halt”.

The Centre’s counter-affidavit, while flagging “reported misuse of waqf provisions to encroach private properties and government properties”, said, “It is really shocking to know that after the amendment brought in the year 2013, there is 116% rise in auqaf area”. It referred to the data uploaded on the Waqf Management System of India (WAMSI) portal as proof.

Countering this, the Board said the “chart (showing the waqf property data) and relatable averment in the (Centre’s) affidavit, the way it has been projected, is completely misconceived and misleading, apart from being inaccurate”.

The rejoinder affidavit said, “It appears that in its affidavit Union of India is suggesting that all the properties registered as waqf before 2013 were immediately uploaded on WAMSI Portal when it became operational”.

The Board argued that “to say that the number of waqf properties reflected therein were the only registered properties is mischievous”. It further said, the centre’s affidavit “has carefully avoided making a statement that ‘all the registered waqf properties were uploaded on the web portal in the year 2013’. Since this crucial aspect is missing in the affidavit, the sanctity of this chart itself is seriously doubtful.”

Contending that “updating of WAMSI portal is a work in progress, which would keep acknowledging/ reflecting already registered waqf properties”, the Board said “even otherwise, the figures supplied by the respondent appears to be in clear contradiction with the records maintained on the…portal.” It said that there is government data which shows that “as on October 31, 2024, the number of waqf estates, as information provided by CEO’s of Waqf Boards, is 3,30,008. Whereas the information table set out” in the “counter-affidavit states that in 2025, the number of properties is 6,65,476. Both these figures are contradictory, though it has been compiled by the same set of people of the government agencies.”

It said that such “exponential increase in figures as projected by the Union” could be due to double counting.

“In instances where a comprehensive waqf land comprises multiple waqfs such as dargahs, hospital, mosques, and graveyards, situated within the same premises or patta number, each would be counted separately. Only through such manipulation could the respondents’ statistical claims appear valid, which are in fact wholly erroneous”, it said.

The rejoinder said the counter-affidavit “is silent on the sweeping powers to the collector” in the Waqf Act “and despite dedicating more than 50 paragraphs to emphasise the importance and benefits of registration, it yet fails to explain why an amendment to delete the definition or concept of waqf by user altogether is needed when Section 36 of the 1995 Act requiring registration already exists”.

The counter filed by the Centre had said that the amended law “respects essential religious practices of the Muslim community by leaving matters of faith and worship untouched, while legitimately regulating the secular, administrative facets of waqf management as authorised by the Constitution”.

On this, the rejoinder said “essential religious practice is not a correct constitutional test anymore” and courts “lack the institutional competence and expertise to decide such questions”. It termed the Union’s argument…”not only outlandish but completely erroneous and a view based on the understanding which the believers do not accept”.

The AIMPLB said that “Waqf has direct relation with Islamic belief system. Charity is considered very vital part of Islamic way of life…Waqf as a practice creates institutions for practicing the religion and makes possible what is a communion-based religion, and hence the right related to Article 29.”

The rejoinder affidavit said the amendment that any “government property identified or declared as waqf property shall not be deemed as waqf property… is one of the most egregious and disturbing aspects brought through the present amendment”.

Though there is provision for enquiry by a designated officer whose report can be challenged in the tribunals and the higher courts, “the consequences of change in revenue record in favour of government will make irreversible changes on the ground in view of the assumption in favour of the government, which is supported by the enquiry report of government-nominated officer and the changed revenue records”, it said.

On the provision for non-muslims in the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards, it said, the Act “obstructs the administration of waqf by Muslims as a community and forces upon the community, persons from outside the community in the matters of its management, supervision and overall control. The fact that the same continues to be an existing Mutawalli is also contrary to the record because the Mutawalli is required under the impugned enactment to obey the directions issued by the Board (comprising non-Muslims) under Section 50. In that sense the impugned enactment brings ‘self -administration’ under the Waqf Act to a grinding halt. Further, such a mutawalli is also bound by direction of a non-muslim CEO”.

The rejoinder also countered the Centre’s stand that the amendments were the product of a “very comprehensive, in-depth and analytical study” by the joint House panel saying this “is in reality factually inaccurate and legally insufficient”.

The Board said “the mere invocation of a parliamentary process, even assuming the same was carried out in letter and spirit, cannot immunise legislation from judicial scrutiny. In the case, the whole process is writ large with demonstrable flaws with the manner in which the committee functioned. The dissenting members… repeatedly recorded that their objections were ignored and their inputs were never considered. Many JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) members have documented that the committee’s review of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was hurried and superficial. Notably, instead of deliberating on each provision and the serious concerns voiced (including minority rights and federalism implications), the JPC chair rushed to finalise the report by a narrow 15–11 majority vote, effectively sidelining the dissenting members’ inputs. All alternative amendments proposed by opposition members were outrightly rejected without meaningful debate which… is a procedural failure that goes to the root of the Union’s argument that deliberation in Parliament, howsoever meaningless, must oust judicial review”.