With a heavy heart, the Joint Parliamentary Committee wound up on a rejection of as many as 14 crucial amendments proposed to be made in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, presented before the Lower House in August of last year. The bill proposes a review of the legality under which Muslims’ charitable institutions are being managed within the country and the need in some fashion or the other to come clean on the issue. Initially, the bill provided for 44 changes in existing Waqf laws; a good many were problematic or deemed polarizing. There was a good deal of debating also; the committee took up 14 where consensus was later reached on these by which these changes would be part of the final legislation.
The primary objective of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill is to make amendments in the governance of Waqf properties, the charitable Muslim trust properties, so as to bring increased transparency and accountability on how these properties are managed. However, a number of groups, particularly politicians, have raised objections to the bill, arguing that it invades religious freedom and minority rights. Among various other criticisms coming from leaders in AIMIM and TMC is that, indeed, certain provisions may even turn out to be discriminatory or even unconstitutional.
Key Octantes in Waqf (Amendment) Bill
The most significant amendment in the bill is regarding the composition of Waqf of councils. As per the bill, all the Waqf boards, whether at the State or national level, are required to include at least two non-Muslim members. This provision has been the cause of concern among the opposition faction who think that it will lead to a compromise on the autonomy of the Muslim religious bodies. This amendment, however, explains this by stating that Muslim or non-Muslim, the ex-officio one is not counted as a non-Muslim member leaving Muslim members to at least include two members from outside the Muslim community, along with other nominees, based on the number of ex-officio members.
For the matter of name, there is also amendment to the bill with regards to the manner in which the immovable properties are declared as Waqf. As part of the original bill, it was stated that such a declaration was to be made by the District Collector, the local administrative officer. Debates on centralization and misuse started playing up. The committee proposes that determination of such immovable properties be completely deemed a state government mandate. This will decentralize the power of decision-making, foremostly, in considering the context of the region and the factors of consideration to a decision, “If a property be designated as waqf.”
Additionally, the bill now clearly mentions that it will not be applicable retrospectively if the particular property has already been registered as a waqf. This provision was introduced following plenary discussions because of some apprehensions raised by opposition members (including Congress’s Imran Masood) among which some pointed out that a big portion of waqf properties is still not registered. Almost 90% of waqf properties are said to be unregistered, which might complicate the smooth execution of the statute’s intended provisions.
Regulatory and Resource Issues
Another contentious change has been proposed by BJP MP Tejasvi Surya. According to the proposed provisions, Muslims who donate any piece of land to a waqf will have to prove that they have been a practicing Muslim for at least five years. As soon as the donation is made, the donor has to state that he/she has actually given the gift freely and uncontaminated by motives of fraud. This part causes apprehensions about constraining the repair of such properties by way of any religious or charitable dispensation in light of uberstrict religious conditions-imposition specially targeting donations by individuals who would maybe not fall strictly in the fold of Islam’s practices.
This amendment was one of 23 modifications included by BJP members and their allies during deliberations on the original draft of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. In contrast, opposition members proposed 44 amendments, each of which was rejected through committee deliberations. The decision was taken by a party-line vote in which the BJP and its allies enjoyed a committee majority. Meanwhile, the BJP enjoyed greater presence in the committee, which has 16 members, as opposed to only 10 by the opposition, thus endorsing the rulings of the ruling party.
Opposition Criticism
The opposition criticized the proposed Waqf (Amendment) Act. Many opposition leaders have raised fears that the bill could potentially attack religious freedoms and rights of the minorities granted in the Constitution. The bill has been labeled as a “direct attack on religious freedom” by several leaders, such as Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM and Kalyan Banerjee of TMC. Both leaders argued: “This will infringe upon the constitutional rights, particularly Article 15 (regulating freedom of religion), and Article 30 (regulating minority groups and the right to establish and maintain educational institutions).”
Consequently, the absurdity of putting down various reservations vis-à-vis the bill; those specifically targetting Muslim interests. There are arguments that, despite the avowed efforts of the bill in giving Muslim women more power to rule in an “oppressive” rule, bringing in a host of non-Muslim members to Waqf Board, as well as the setting up of collections through bank authorities, would undermine the management and autonomy of waqf properties. There is the argument from these leaders that such measures risk removing the rights of Muslim communities to self-governance in matters of religion.
Conclusion
The debate on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill extends into broader issues of religious autonomy, minority rights, and the role of state authority in managing religious properties. While the government defends the goals for modernizing and effective operation of Waqf properties, the opposing group is of the view that the bill will hold unintended repercussions for religious freedoms in India. Waiting to make a final submission by January 31, 2025, before the committee examines the Waqf Bill with both eyes of the political class and legal fraternity.
Coming weeks provide for the bill’s final provisions to a public vote in Parliament where much rides upon whether the concerns from the opposition and from the constitutional scholars are addressed through amendments or if alternate suggestions are made. An inference drawn from the discussion deals with resolving the complexity of balancing between the reforms needed legally with the protection of fundamental rights and religious liberties when pertaining to a country as diverse and pluralistic as India.
