Challenge to the Waqf Act 2025

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024, introduced as a reform measure, has been severely criticized by legal scholars, civil society, and minority groups. It is alleged to be a case of legislative overreach, undermining the constitutional guarantees granted to religious minorities under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Issues Raised

Violation of Articles 25 & 26

  • Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion.
  • Article 26 ensures religious denominations the right to manage their own religious affairs, institutions, and property.
  • The Act is seen as eroding religious autonomy, particularly of the Muslim community.
  • Critics argue that rights are being diluted under the guise of reform.

Supreme Court Precedents Ignored

  • Judgments like Ratilal Gandhi and Tilkayat Govindlalji Maharaj established that the state cannot interfere in the internal affairs of religious denominations.
  • The 2024 Amendment is seen as directly violating these precedents.

Key Provisions Criticized

Section 11: Undemocratic Composition of Waqf Boards

  • Mandates that all members of state Waqf Boards be nominated by the State Government.
  • Destroys internal democracy and removes community representation.
  • Raises fears of the board becoming a government-controlled body.

Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards

  • Possibility of a Muslim minority in a board meant to administer Islamic institutions.
  • Contrasted with Hindu, Sikh, Christian temple and trust boards, where only community members manage affairs.
  • Seen as violating Article 26(d) (right to administer own institutions).

Removal of No-Confidence Motion Against Chairperson

  • Board members cannot remove a chairperson through internal vote.
  • Eliminates accountability and checks within the institution.
  • Concentrates power in government appointees.

Changes to Appointment of CEO

  • Earlier, the CEO was to be a Muslim chosen from two names recommended by the board.
  • Now, this requirement is removed, and state alone appoints.
  • Reduces community control over leadership.
Challenge to the Waqf Act 2025

Legal and Doctrinal Concerns

Abolition of ‘Waqf by Use’ Doctrine

  • A historic principle: land used over long periods for religious purposes can be recognized as Waqf.
  • Upheld by SC in Ram Janmabhoomi case.
  • The Act outlaws this prospectively, violating established precedent and religious tradition.

Vague Language in Section 3

  • New conditions for Waqf property:
    • Dedicator must be Muslim for five years.
    • Must not have used any “contrivance” (vague term) to make the dedication.
  • Ambiguity invites bureaucratic harassment and legal uncertainty.
  • Opens floodgates to litigation and state discretion.

Cumulative Impact

  • The combined effect is a systematic erosion of autonomy of a minority religious institution.
  • Perceived as majoritarian overreach, setting a dangerous precedent for all religious minorities.
  • Critics argue it is not reform, but a form of retaliation and retribution against institutional identity.

Comparative Perspective

  • Other religious bodies (e.g., Shri Jagannath Temple Act, Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Sikh Gurdwara Act, etc.) retain community control and do not allow outsiders.
  • The amendment is seen as violating constitutional equality, selectively targeting Muslim institutions.

Ethical and Political Implications

  • Undermines public trust in legislative intentions.
  • Raises questions on equality, dignity, and minority safeguards.
  • Could lead to demoralisation and marginalisation of an already vulnerable community.
  • Critics note: “Administrative convenience must not become a euphemism for exclusion.”