The Lok Sabha commenced on a turbulent note as Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju introduced the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, amidst strong opposition. The bill has sparked nationwide outrage for its controversial provisions that risk altering the very foundation of waqf jurisprudence in India. Despite widespread dissent and stark warnings from the opposition, the government remains steadfast in pushing this legislation through.
This bill, which proposes to rename the Waqf Act of 1995 to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, aims to consolidate state control over waqf properties under the guise of reform. It empowers the district collector with sweeping authority, transferring all responsibilities of the survey commissioner to the collector or any officer not below the rank of deputy collector. Such a move eliminates the necessary checks and balances, leading to an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the executive. This is not an administrative convenience—it is a deliberate structural redesign that bypasses accountability and undermines the autonomy of Waqf Boards.
The most contentious provision gives the collector unilateral authority to decide if a property claimed as waqf actually belongs to the government. This is not a mere bureaucratic shift. It revives old wounds of historical injustice—most notably the 123 waqf properties, including mosques and graveyards, that were inadvertently acquired during the expansion of Delhi. Granting the state the power to override claims of religious endowments risks setting a dangerous precedent of land dispossession under the cover of legal reform.
The side effects of the bill, both intended and unintended, are severe and far-reaching. First, the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards—including a clause that permits a non-Muslim to serve as the Chief Executive Officer—strikes at the heart of the religious and cultural integrity of waqf institutions. This provision, unprecedented in Islamic legal practice worldwide, weakens the representational ethos of waqf management and alienates the very community the system was designed to serve.
Second, the bill does away with the principle of waqf by user, which previously allowed land or property used for religious purposes over time to be declared waqf. Eliminating this concept without a viable replacement strips community institutions of their legal protection and ignores centuries of lived tradition. Additionally, the centralisation of data by mandating registration of all waqf properties within six months into a national database, without adequate institutional support, paves the way for bureaucratic paralysis and potential misuse.
Furthermore, the removal of the provision that made tribunal decisions final and restructuring the tribunal to exclude members with expertise in Islamic law undermine the tribunal’s credibility. It makes way for legal ambiguity, prolonged litigation, and rulings devoid of religious context—effectively secularising a spiritual and community-driven institution. Appeals are to be filed before the High Court within 90 days, yet no clarity is provided on the qualification of judges to adjudicate such culturally specific matters.
The bill was introduced last year amid a din in Parliament and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) chaired by BJP MP Jagadambika Pal. The JPC accepted 14 amendments proposed by NDA members while rejecting all 44 recommendations from opposition MPs. Crucially, dissenting notes by opposition members were redacted from the final report without their consent—a glaring procedural lapse that casts doubt on the integrity of the legislative process. This act of suppressing institutional disagreement shows a calculated effort to steamroll opposition and silence alternate voices in Parliament.
The rationale behind the government’s urgency to push the Waqf (Amendment) Bill seems to be twofold: consolidate control over vast tracts of waqf land and simultaneously present it as a bold reform agenda. Yet critics argue that it masks deeper failures. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav called it a “veil over the government’s unfulfilled promises,” citing demonetisation, rising unemployment, inflation, and stalled infrastructure projects as areas where the government has failed to deliver. By focusing public attention on controversial cultural legislation, the government deflects from its underperformance in economic governance.
Despite Minister Rijiju’s repeated assurance that the bill will not interfere in religious practices or mosque management, the text of the bill speaks otherwise. The proposed structural reforms give undue power to the state and erode the historical character of waqf institutions, creating avenues for political and bureaucratic exploitation. BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad’s invocation of national unity during the debate cannot override the inherent implications of the bill, which many believe disrespects the community’s religious self-governance.
The bill’s journey through Parliament appears inevitable given the current numbers. The NDA commands a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha with 293 members, surpassing the 272 votes required for passage. The Opposition bloc, INDIA, has 235 MPs, bolstered by a few non-aligned parties that have also declared opposition. However, the BJP’s numerical edge in alliance with parties like the TDP, JD(U), Shiv Sena (Shinde faction), and others virtually guarantees the bill’s passage in the lower house. Nonetheless, resistance continues in the Rajya Sabha, with regional parties such as the BJD, which holds seven seats, pledging to oppose it.
The bill’s passage would set a regressive precedent, institutionalising state overreach into community-run religious affairs. It risks legalising historical injustices and accelerates the erosion of minority institutions under the garb of administrative streamlining. Reform is not the problem—exclusion, opacity, and cultural insensitivity are. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, may be framed as a tool of empowerment, but its implications reveal an unmistakable strategy to centralise control, sideline dissent, and recalibrate constitutional secularism on terms dictated by the state. If passed without fundamental reconsideration, this bill will be remembered not as reform—but as rupture.
