Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on Monday approved the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, adopting all 14 amendments proposed by the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) members while rejecting those moved by the Opposition.

The bill, introduced by Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on August 28, 2024 in the Lok Sabha, aims to amend the Waqf Act, 1995, to address management issues surrounding waqf properties. It is now set for debate in Parliament during the Budget Session, which is scheduled from January 31 to February 13 and March 10 to April 4.

The Bill faced criticism from the opposition on several points including its its constitutional validity and impact on minority rights. The JPC deliberations witnessed heated exchanges, culminating in the one-day suspension of 10 Opposition MPs for disrupting proceedings. Notable MPs included Congress leaders Nasir Hussain and Mohammed Jawed, DMK’s A. Raja, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who accused the JPC chairperson, Jagdambika Pal, of bias.

Key Features of the Bill

The government aims to enhance accountability and efficiency in the functioning of Waqf by bringing into effect changes with regards the following:

Formation of Waqf:

1. The Bill allows waqf to be created only by individuals practicing Islam for at least five years, replacing earlier provisions that included non-Muslims. Notably, In the Waqf laws of 1913, 1923, 1954, and 1995, waqf was exclusively defined as a permanent dedication of property by individuals professing Islam. However, a 2013 amendment to the 1995 Act broadened the definition, allowing property to be dedicated as waqf by persons of any faith, including non-Muslims. The 2024 Bill reverses this change.
2. Removes “waqf by user,” which recognized property as waqf based on long-term use.
3. Specifies that endowments such as waqf-alal-aulad (family waqf) must not disinherit heirs, including female members.

Government Property and Waqf:

1. Declares that any government property identified as waqf will revert to government ownership.
2. The Collector will determine disputed ownership and update revenue records accordingly.

Survey of Waqf Properties:

The Bill proposes to replace the Survey Commissioner with the District Collector, who will oversee waqf property surveys and resolve disputes over ownership.

Composition of Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards:

1. Introduces mandatory non-Muslim members in both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, breaking from the tradition of exclusively Muslim representation.
2. Grants state governments the authority to nominate all board members, including two non-Muslims and members from Backward Classes of Muslims, Shias, and Sunnis.

Tribunals and Appeals:

1. Removes experts in Muslim law from Waqf Tribunals, which now comprise a District Court judge and a government officer.
2. Revokes the finality of Tribunal decisions, allowing appeals to High Courts within 90 days.

Criticism

The Opposition members proposed over 500 amendments to the 44 clauses in the Bill. They contend that it infringes on the autonomy of Muslim religious bodies and sets troubling precedents regarding religious representation. The key points raised by them are:

Opposition to Renaming the Act:

The proposed renaming of the Act to "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act" (UMEED) has faced resistance from Opposition leaders, who deem it unnecessary and question the intentions behind this change.

Reduction in Muslim Representation:

The opposition argues that mandatory inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf governance institutions undermines the autonomy of Muslim religious affairs, potentially violating Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of religious groups to manage their own institutions.

New Religious Criteria for Waqf Creation:

By requiring a waqf creator to practice Islam for at least five years, the Bill introduces a distinction that has drawn criticism for potentially violating Article 14 (right to equality). The rationale for this time-based distinction is said to be unclear, prompting questions about its constitutionality.

Absence of Muslim Law Experts in Tribunals:

It is argued that removing Muslim law experts from Tribunals may hinder effective dispute resolution.