Waqf properties, boards: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Properties
The extent of encroachment on Waqf_properties
2019: 17,000 squatters across India
Govt: Squatters on 17,000 Waqf assets
Punjab has the highest number of Waqf Board properties under encroachment with such properties numbering around 17,000 across the country, Minorities Affairs minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi told Parliament. Punjab is followed by Madhya Pradesh (3,240), West Bengal (3,082), Tamil Nadu (1,335) and Karnataka (862), Delhi (373), showed the data on 24 state Waqf Board properties furnished by the ministry. PTI
2018: ‘80% Waqf properties in Gurgaon free of squatters’
The district administration has found out that 80% of the properties with the Waqf board are “free of illegal encroachments”, contrary to the board’s claim that a majority of its properties in the city have been encroached upon. A district administration spokesperson said on Tuesday that the properties were inspected by the tehsildar after instructions from acting deputy commissioner Chandra Shekhar Khare and a report on the same sent to the district revenue officer. According to the report, garbage, hay and other trash was found at some of the site.
According to Waqf members, they have received the report from the administration and will examine it. If the report is found to be true, the board will take measures to clear the properties and use them for prayers. “Some of these properties are in places where members of our community do not reside. So, villagers have kept their animals and fodder there. We will get these properties cleared and repaired, if required,” said Jamaluddin, the estate officer of the Waqf board.
The state government also designated the chairman of Haryana Waqf board, Raheesh Khan, as a “minister of state”. A notification by the additional chief secretary Dr RR Prasad said, “The state government has decided to provide status equal to ‘minister of state’ to the chairman of Haryana Waqf Board. All expenditure involved will be borne by the Haryana Waqf Board itself as it is a statutory body under provisions of Haryana Waqf Rules, 2012.”
On the other hand, Khare and police commissioner Sandeep Khirwar held a meet with some members of the Muslim community on Tuesday afternoon. A group of 60-70 met the two officials and raised their concerns and anxieties at the meeting.
Meanwhile, Hindu outfits gave the district administration one week to enforce a ban on prayer in open areas, threatening protests across the city if their demands were not met. Alleging that those offering prayer in open areas were illegal migrants, the outfits demanded verification of citizenship of such persons.
The Waqf Act
Waqf property (concept); ii) changes proposed in 2024
Asad Rehman, August 10, 2024: The Indian Express
A Bill seeking to amend the 1995 Waqf Act, and proposing sweeping changes to how Waqfs are governed and regulated, has been referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament following protests by opposition MPs.
The government on Thursday referred the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, to a Joint Committee of Parliament. The tabling of the Bill by Union Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju was met with strong criticism from the Opposition parties who said the proposed law was “unconstitutional”, “anti-minority”, and “divisive”.
The Bill seeks to amend the 1995 Waqf Act, and proposes sweeping changes to how Waqfs are governed and regulated. What is the law on Waqf? What amendments has the Bill proposed, and why are these changes significant?
First, what is a Waqf property?
A Waqf is personal property given by Muslims for a specific purpose — religious, charitable, or for private purposes. While the beneficiaries of the property can be different, the ownership of the property is implied to be with God.
A Waqf can be formed through a deed or instrument or orally, or a property can be deemed to be Waqf if it has been used for religious or charitable purposes for a long period of time. Once a property is declared as Waqf, its character changes forever, and cannot be reversed.
How is a Waqf governed?
Waqf properties in India are governed by the Waqf Act, 1995. However, India has had a legal regime for the governance of Waqfs since 1913, when the Muslim Waqf Validating Act came into force. The Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 followed. After Independence, the Central Waqf Act, 1954, was enacted, which was ultimately replaced by the Waqf Act, 1995.
In 2013, the law was amended to prescribe imprisonment of up to two years for encroachment on Waqf property, and to explicitly prohibit the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, or transfer of Waqf property.
The Waqf law provides for the appointment of a survey commissioner who maintains a list of all Waqf properties by making local investigations, summoning witnesses, and requisitioning public documents.
A Waqf property is managed by a mutawalli (caretaker), who acts as a superviser. Waqf properties are managed in a way that is similar to how properties under Trusts are managed under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.
The Waqf Act states that any dispute related to Waqf properties will be decided by a Waqf Tribunal. The Tribunal is constituted by the state government, and comprises three members — a chairperson who is a state judicial officer not below the rank of a District, Sessions or Civil Judge, Class I; an officer from the state civil services; and a person with knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence.
The law also has provisions for the constitution and appointment of Waqf Boards, Waqf Councils, Chief Executive Officers for Waqf Boards in the states. The CEOs and parliamentarians who are part of the Waqf Boards must be from the Muslim community.
What are the functions of the Waqf Boards?
A Waqf Board is a body under the state government, which works as a custodian for Waqf properties across the state. In most states, there are separate Waqf Boards for the Shia and Sunni communities. Almost all prominent mosques in the country are Waqf properties and are under the Waqf Board of the state.
A Waqf Board is headed by a chairperson, and has one or two nominees from the state government, Muslim legislators and parliamentarians, Muslim members of the state Bar Council, recognised scholars of Islamic theology, and mutawallis of Waqfs with an annual income of Rs 1 lakh and above.
A Waqf Board has powers under the law to administer the property and take measures for the recovery of lost properties of any Waqf, and to sanction any transfer of immovable property of a Waqf by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, or lease. However, the sanction shall not be given unless at least two thirds of the members of the Waqf Board vote in favour of such a transaction.
What major changes have been proposed to the Waqf Act?
The Bill seeks to substantially alter the existing framework of Waqf law. The proposed amendment shifts the power of governing Waqfs from the Boards and Tribunals, which are largely run by the Muslim community, to the state governments.
Among the key changes in the Bill:
- The Bill seeks to change the name of the parent Act from the Waqf Act, 1995, to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.
- It seeks to introduce three new provisions in the Act:
First, Section 3A, which states that no person shall create a Waqf unless he is the lawful owner of the property and competent to transfer or dedicate such property. This provision appears to address the assumption that land that does not belong to an individual is not given as Waqf.
Second, Section 3C(1), which states that “government property identified or declared as Waqf property, before or after the commencement of this Act, shall not be deemed to be a Waqf property”.
Third, Section 3C(2), which empowers the government to decide if a property given as Waqf is government land. “If any question arises as to whether any such property is a Government property, the same shall be referred to the Collector having jurisdiction who shall make such inquiry as he deems fit, and determine whether such property is a Government property or not and submit his report to the State Government,” says the Bill.
This provision essentially means that the Collector — and not the Waqf Tribunal — will make this determination in case of a dispute. The proposed clause also states that such property “shall not be treated as Waqf property till the Collector submits his report”. This means that until the government decides the issue, Waqf cannot be in control of the disputed land.
The proposed Bill would also give the central government the power to “direct the audit of any Waqf at any time by an auditor appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, or by any officer designated by the Central Government for that purpose”.
These provisions, when read together, indicate that the Bill carries a presumption that government land is incorrectly deemed Waqf property in some cases, and that the issue needs intervention by the government.
- The Bill also redefines how a property is deemed to be in the possession of Waqf. as it seeks to remove the concept of “Waqf by use”. Under the 1995 law, a property by continuous and uninterrupted use by Muslims for religious purposes is “deemed” to be a Waqf property. This means that a property can be deemed to be a Waqf through use even if the original declaration is suspect. Several mosques and graveyards could fall in this category.
The proposed Bill, by omitting the provisions relating to “Waqf by user,” makes a Waqf property suspect in the absence of a valid Waqfnama.
- The Bill proposes to change the composition of Waqf Boards in states. It proposes to allow even a non-Muslim CEO, and gives the power to the state government to have at least two non-Muslim members to the state Waqf Boards.
2025 Apr: Both houses of Parliament pass the bill
April 5, 2025: The Times of India
New Delhi : The Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill with 128 votes in favour and 95 against after a marathon 15-hour debate which started at 11am on Thursday and wound up around 2.30am the next day.
The lengthy debate, mar- ked by acrimonious exchanges, ended with the opposition seeking a division and the bill sailing through with NDA’s ‘secular’ allies firmly in its corner. BJD’s surprising decision to withdraw its whip to allow its seven members to vote as “per their conscience” brought a few extra votes for the governing side and took its tally beyond the anticipated 123 votes to 128. A minimum of 119 votes was required for passage, and BJP’s deft floor management ensured a comfortable margin. The opposition, expected to muster 98 votes, fell short at 95.
The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on Thursday after nearly 14 hours of discussion, with 288 members supporting it and 232 against it. With both Houses approving the bill, it now awaits President Droupadi Murmu’s assent to amend the Waqf Act of 1995.
Parties’ voting patterns
PM hails passage, calls it a ‘watershed moment’ in India’s pursuit of socio-economic justice, transparency & inclusive growth
JD(U) risks support among Muslims ahead of Bihar polls, with 5 party functionaries quitting since Thursday
In the wake of split voting by 7 BJD MPs, party seniors criticised the flip-flop and questioned leadership’s decision-making process
Jayant Chaudhary-led RLD, an NDA ally, voted in support of bill but has been muted in public about its stand as it wants to avoid angering a community that constitutes a voter base in western UP
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Cong MP Mohd Jawed file separate petitions in SC challenging validity of bill arguing that it violates constitutional provisions
Mouthpiece of influential Kerala Muslim organisation calls Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi’s absence during Parl debate a black mark
“8 Reasons Why GOI’s Waqf Law Is Discriminatory”
Abhishek Singhvi, April 17, 2025: The Times of India
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024, introduced in the name of reform, is a regressive measure that undermines constitutional guarantees, religious autonomy and established judicial principles that protect minority rights. It is a striking example of legislative overreach disguised as administrative efficiency.
● The Act violates Articles 25 and 26, especially the latter, that guarantee not only the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion but also the right to self-manage religious affairs. These are not absolute rights, but they’re certainly not so malleable that legislative enactments can substantially snatch away autonomy of religious institutions to self-govern.
Supreme Court, in the first two decades of Independence itself, in cases like Ratilal Gandhi and Tilkayat Govindlalji Maharaj, reaffirmed that any law that takes away the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs is unconstitutional. The present Act attempts exactly that. Constitutional rights are not ornamental, meant to decorate our statute books, while being steadily undermined in practice. They are substantive protections against state overreach. By circumventing these guarantees, the Act does not merely touch the periphery of the Constitution – it pierces its core.
● The Act’s Section 11 effectively destroys democratic participation in the formation of state waqf boards. By mandating 100% members be nominated by state govt, it reduces the process to a bureaucratic formality, stripping communities of their right to elect their representatives. What remains of institutional autonomy if the entire board becomes an extension of the govt?
● The Act allows for the bizarre possibility that only a minimum of 3 of 11 members of a waqf board might be Muslim. Can you imagine a Hindu temple board with a majority of non-Hindus? Or a Sikh gurdwara committee dominated by non-Sikhs?
This is gross distortion of the concept of religious self-governance enshrined in Article 26. Such a provision isn’t merely tone-deaf; it violates fundamentally both constitutional parity and community dignity. The law mustn’t just be equal in text, but in spirit and application. Equality cannot be administered with one hand while rights are taken away with the other.
● The amendment snatches away the right of waqf board members to remove their chairperson through a no-confidence motion. This is a clear affront to the principle of internal democracy and institutional accountability. Autonomy without accountability is hollow, but accountability without autonomy is tyranny.
● Earlier provisions required a waqf board CEO to be a Muslim and to be selected from two board- recommended names. Section 15 removes both requirements. This dilutes the community’s role in selection to vanishing point. The only purpose is to tighten state control, where motivation is control, control and more control.
When similar roles in other religious institutions remain community-centric and respected, why should one community alone be singled out for such dilution? Administrative convenience cannot become a euphemism for erasure of identity.
● Diverse Acts like Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Shri Jagannath Temple Act, Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, Tamil Nadu Religious Endowments Act, Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, Sikh Gurdwara Act and many more, preserve the autonomy of their respective religious communities. Not one allows outsiders a dominant role. Why, then, should Muslim religious institutions be treated differently? Is constitutional equality a oneway street?
● The Act attacks the doctrine of ‘waqf by user’, a concept deeply rooted in Islamic tradition and upheld by SC’s Constitution bench in the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment. SC reiterated that waqf may be inferred through long-standing public religious use, even absent formal documentation. By attempting to outlaw this doctrine for the future (ie, prospectively), the Act sets a dangerous precedent of legislating established religious doctrine out of existence, an attempt likely to be held patently unconstitutional.
● Section 3 introduces an ill-defined requirement that the person dedicating property must not only be a Muslim for five years but also must not have used any “contrivance” in making the dedication. What is a contrivance? Who defines it? On what grounds? This opens the floodgates to bureaucratic discretion, harassment and endless litigation.
A term so vague and subjective will only make the wakf claimant go round and round in endless bureaucratic circles in govt departments. Vagueness of such drafting is not accidental but is motivated. It creates permanent insecurity and establishes permanent dependence on state sanction. Cumulative effect of these amendments is the erosion – if not obliteration – of a community’s right to manage its own religious affairs. In doing so, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens every minority institution in India.
The Constitution does not grant rights on the condition of majoritarian approval. It’s the entrenchment of safeguards against majoritarianism, precisely to protect minority rights from arbitrary use of state power. This Act is not reform but retaliation. Not rationalisation, but retribution.
As the shayar evocatively put it, “The land is mine, the home is mine, the prayers are mine, the legacy is mine – yet I am asked to prove that I have a right to what is already my own.” Such legislations, draped in the garb of reform, become instruments of systemic exclusion. They generate nothing but doubt, divisiveness, distrust, and demoralisation.
