The Waqf Bill Debate: Balancing Governance and Religious Autonomy
Waqf (Amendment) Bill,2024: Introduction
When the Indian Parliament reconvenes to debate the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 from April 02, 2025, it does more than legislate on administrative reform; it sets the stage for a dramatic confrontation over the autonomy of religious communities, the role of the state, and the meaning of secular governance.
The Bill proposes sweeping amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995, which regulates the management of Muslim religious endowments known as waqf. To supporters, the amendments promise transparency, accountability, and protection of waqf properties. To critics, they signal state overreach, marginalisation of the Muslim community, and dilution of constitutional protections. This essay explores the competing arguments for and against the Bill, not to take sides but to illuminate the complexities of the debate.
What is Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024 ?
The Waqf Amendment Bill seeks to reform waqf property management by ensuring transparency, reducing disputes, and preventing encroachments. It aims to streamline governance, enhance accountability, and protect waqf assets while addressing legal and administrative challenges in their oversight.
What is Waqf Act 1995 ?
The Waqf Act, 1995 regulates waqf properties in India, ensuring their management, protection, and utilization for religious and charitable purposes. It established Waqf Boards at state and national levels, empowered to survey, register, and oversee waqf assets, resolve disputes, and prevent misuse or encroachments, ensuring transparency and accountability in administration.
The Need for Reform: Efficiency versus Motive
Proponents of the Bill argue that reform is long overdue. The Waqf Act, they say, is plagued with loopholes, inefficiencies, and a lack of oversight. Thousands of cases of land encroachment, fraudulent waqf claims, and administrative mismanagement have left genuine beneficiaries—often poor Muslims—without access to the education, healthcare, and social services that waqf properties were meant to support. Government reports and the Sachar Committee have repeatedly underlined the need for modernisation and digital documentation.
From this angle, the Bill introduces much-needed corrections. It mandates digital surveys of waqf properties, introduces mechanisms to prevent false claims, and imposes accountability on Waqf Boards. Replacing slow-moving Survey Commissioners with District Collectors is seen as a step toward faster, standardised record-keeping.
However, critics challenge this narrative. They question whether administrative concerns truly justify the extent of changes being proposed. For example, they argue that poor survey work should be fixed by better resourcing, not by giving bureaucrats sweeping powers over religious matters. They view the reforms as motivated less by efficiency and more by an urge to control Muslim institutions. The timing of the Bill—while the Waqf Act’s constitutionality is under review in court—adds to these suspicions.
Waqf by User: Tradition versus Legal Certainty
One of the most contentious changes in the Bill is the removal of “waqf by user”. Under Islamic tradition, properties used continuously for religious purposes can acquire waqf status even without formal documentation. This custom has preserved countless rural mosques, shrines, and graveyards passed down through generations.
The new Bill insists on written waqf deeds and removes the user-based recognition. Supporters of the change argue that this provision had been abused to claim government and private lands as waqf, leading to protracted legal disputes. A formal deed, they argue, provides legal certainty and protects property rights.
Critics, however, see the removal as an erasure of centuries-old Islamic practice. It especially hurts poor and marginalised communities who lack documentation. They argue that reforming the verification process would have sufficed, rather than erasing a whole tradition. Furthermore, by disqualifying new donors who have not practised Islam for five years, the Bill potentially excludes recent converts and raises concerns of religious profiling.
Who Decides? Waqf Boards versus District Collectors
The Bill significantly alters the balance of power in waqf property adjudication. Earlier, Waqf Boards and specialised Tribunals decided whether a property was waqf. Under the new Bill, this authority shifts to the District Collector. Moreover, if there is a dispute, the property is presumed to be government land until proven otherwise.
Supporters justify this by pointing to misuse of Section 40 of the current Act, where Waqf Boards have allegedly claimed private or public land as waqf without due process. Transferring the power to state officials, they argue, will ensure neutrality and reduce fraudulent claims.
Opponents counter that District Collectors are executive officers with no religious or judicial training and may not understand the nuances of Islamic law. Since the state often has a stake in the land being claimed, they warn of conflict of interest. Allowing executive officers to make final decisions in such cases, they argue, erodes due process and violates constitutional principles of religious autonomy under Articles 25 and 26.
Representation on Waqf Boards: Inclusion or Intrusion?
The Bill also proposes the inclusion of non-Muslim members—including as CEOs—on Waqf Boards. The government claims this brings administrative expertise and aligns with inclusive governance. It points out that non-Muslims will not form the majority, and that similar reforms are found in the Sachar Committee’s recommendations.
Nevertheless, this change has sparked significant opposition. Detractors argue that waqf institutions are religious in nature, and allowing outsiders—even if well-intentioned—to manage them undermines the community’s constitutional right to self-governance. While diversity is desirable in government institutions, they assert, religious trusts require a different kind of sensitivity.
The symbolic implications are equally important. For a community already feeling marginalised, the appointment of non-Muslim officials to manage their religious assets is seen as an affront, not as reform.
The Limitation Act: Justice or Jeopardy?
Another change under the Bill is the removal of Section 107, which exempted waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963. This Act usually prevents legal claims after 12 years, but waqf properties, by their nature, are intended to be eternal. Removing the exemption means that if a waqf property is occupied unlawfully for over 12 years, the occupier might claim ownership.
Supporters argue that the change will help clear the backlog of property disputes and prevent misuse of waqf status to reopen very old cases. It also brings waqf disputes under the same legal timelines that govern other property claims.
Critics see it differently. They argue that applying the Limitation Act effectively legalises encroachments. Given the historical neglect of waqf properties and the lack of records, many genuine waqf lands could be permanently lost. For communities that lack legal resources, this could mean the irreversible alienation of property meant for their welfare.
Political and Social Ramifications: A Nation on Edge
At a broader level, the Bill is not being viewed in isolation. Critics connect it with other laws like the Enemy Property Act, under which properties belonging to people who migrated to Pakistan or China were seized. They argue that the Waqf Bill uses similar logic—empowering the state to reinterpret and reclassify community property. Such legal moves, they warn, chip away at the secular fabric of the nation.
The controversy has led to protests and political mobilisation. Opposition parties and civil society groups have framed the Bill as part of a larger majoritarian agenda. Muslim leaders argue that the Bill treats their religious institutions as liabilities, not assets.
The government, for its part, has pointed to consultations held with stakeholders and the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which included voices from multiple parties. It insists that the Bill is about governance, not religion.
Conclusion: Between Reform and Reassurance
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 stands at the intersection of governance of reform and religious autonomy. While there is widespread agreement that waqf institutions need better oversight, the methods chosen have raised serious concerns. By shifting decision-making to the executive, removing traditional practices like waqf by user, and altering the composition of Waqf Boards, the Bill appears to tilt toward state control.
Supporters argue that the reforms are necessary to protect waqf assets from mismanagement and to make their benefits accessible to the community. Critics argue that the same goals could have been achieved with more sensitivity and consultation.
As India continues to evolve as a multi-faith democracy, the challenge is not just to govern better, but to do so without alienating or marginalising any community. The Waqf Bill may yet pass into law, but its real success will depend on whether it can win the trust of those it claims to serve.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
