Even though unresolved issues persisted around the management and governance of waqf properties after the Waqf Act of 1995, the Waqf Amendment Bill (2024) came under a cloud because it was seen to be formulated without consultation with stakeholders, including and especially the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The decision to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of Parliament was, therefore, welcome. It was hoped that this would ensure a diversity of voices and inputs. In this context, the furore as the panel’s report was tabled on February 13 — the Opposition insisted that its dissenting remarks had been redacted from the report; the Treasury benches issued a strong denial — is unfortunate. It threatens to derail debate on an issue that needs to be discussed seriously and openly in the country’s highest deliberative forum.
The Waqf Bill has national significance for at least three reasons. First, Waqf Boards control/own a vast amount of land and property. Second, a large number of waqf properties — private holdings donated for charitable and pious purposes — face encroachment issues and are marked by unclear ownership. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, many of the proposed amendments — such as allowing non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards, making the executive the final arbiter in cases of properties disputed by the government and giving the power to the Centre to order an audit of “any Waqf at any time” — have stoked apprehensions. There are fears that the cultural and religious rights of the Muslim minority may be undermined. The issue is emotive, given that many waqf properties are mosques, madrasas and graveyards.
The way forward is to balance the need for reform with respect for minority rights. Questions of eminent domain over religious, charitable properties cannot be resolved if the process by which the law is passed is opaque. Given the disputes around Muslim places of worship and the sometimes disturbing rhetoric on minority issues from people associated with the ruling party, the fear of unilateral change in the character of religious properties must be addressed. Responding to the Opposition’s criticism in Parliament, Home Minister Amit Shah welcomed further dissenting remarks to the JPC report and the report itself was tabled again with a corrigendum. This is a first step towards accommodation. Going ahead, it is important that the Bill and report are discussed threadbare, along with the larger issues they deal with. Consequential and sensitive legislation must not be rushed, or pushed through.
