As anticipated, the tabling of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, has ignited a political storm in Parliament. The Opposition has accused the government of undermining constitutional values and targeting minority communities. As Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju presented the Bill, Congress declared it an attack on the Constitution’s basic structure, alleging that it seeks to defame minorities and divide society. The government, however, remained stuck to the argument that the Bill is merely an attempt to streamline the management of Waqf properties and prevent legal disputes.
At the heart of the controversy are several changes to the 1995 Waqf Act. One of the most debated provisions allows non-Muslims to be appointed as Chief Executive Officers of Waqf Boards and mandates at least two non-Muslim members on each state’s board. Critics argue that this is an infringement on the right of the Muslim community to manage its own religious endowments, a right that is historically recognised under Indian law. The government, on the other hand, claims that this move promotes transparency and efficiency, and ensures better governance. Another contentious change is the power granted to the District Collector to determine whether a property belongs to Waqf or the government. Previously, this was the responsibility of the Waqf Board and, in case of disputes, the Waqf Tribunal. The Bill also removes the concept of “Waqf by user,” which previously allowed a property to be considered Waqf based on long-term religious use, even in the absence of formal documentation. This has led to concerns—not completely unsubstantiated—that several mosques, dargahs, and other religious sites may lose their Waqf status if they lack proper records.
The Opposition’s discontent is not just about the Bill’s provisions but also the process through which it has been handled. The Joint Parliamentary Committee, which reviewed the Bill, accepted 14 amendments from NDA MPs while rejecting all 44 proposed by Opposition members. Dissenting voices claim that their objections were either ignored or removed from the final report without their consent. Given the government’s comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the Bill is likely to pass despite fierce resistance. But the broader question is: does it sit well with the spirit of the Indian Constitution. Outside Parliament, the Bill has drawn criticism from Muslim organisations, with the All India Muslim Personal Law Board calling it a “black day.” The AIMPLB and other groups have vowed to oppose the law through peaceful protests and legal action. They vehemently argue that it represents an attempt to weaken Muslim institutions under the guise of reform. Amid this heated debate, it is crucial to examine the broader implications of the Bill. While the government’s argument for better management of Waqf properties is valid, any reform concerning religious institutions must be carried out with transparency and consensus. The perception that the Bill disproportionately targets one community fuels further polarisation at a time when religious harmony is already fragile throughout the country. If the government truly intends to improve Waqf administration, it must engage more meaningfully with stakeholders and address the concerns raised by opposition parties and community leaders.
Reforms should be about improving governance, not deepening divisions. In a diverse democracy like India, the success of any legislation depends not only on its legal soundness but also on how it is perceived by those it affects the most. A more inclusive and consultative approach could have ensured that necessary reforms were introduced without triggering fears of marginalisation.