Answer

Introduction

India’s Waqf estate, spread over 38 lakh acres (~8.5 lakh properties) in 30 States and UTs, plays a vital role in religious, educational, and charitable activities. The Waqf Act, 2025, aimed at reforming governance, has raised concerns over autonomy and state control, leading to judicial intervention through the Supreme Court’s interim guidelines.

Body

Key challenges posed by amendments done by the Waqf Act, 2025

• Excessive powers to District Collectors: The Act gave district collectors authority to decide whether a property is Waqf or government land, bypassing judicial mechanisms.
  Eg: Section 3C allowed collectors to remove Waqf status during inquiry, undermining separation of powers.
• Threat to community autonomy: Inclusion of non-Muslim majority in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council diluted the right of Muslims to manage their own religious affairs under Article 26.
• Discriminatory ‘five-year rule’: The requirement that only a person practising Islam for five years could create Waqf was seen as arbitrary and discriminatory.
  Eg: This provision restricted rights of new converts and violated the principle of equality.
• Removal of ‘Waqf by use’: The abolition of the long-standing concept meant that lands used for religious or charitable purposes could no longer be recognized as Waqf unless formally registered.
• Limitation on encroachment claims: Application of the Limitation Act restricted Waqfs from recovering encroached properties beyond a fixed time frame.
  Eg: Earlier, Waqf Boards could take action without time limits; the amendment weakened their ability to protect assets.

Interim guidelines of the Supreme Court issued to address concerns

• Retention of Waqf status during inquiry: Court stayed Section 3C’s clause that removed Waqf status during inquiry.
  Eg: Properties will continue as Waqf until a final decision is made by tribunals.
• Judicial oversight over property disputes: Court barred collectors from unilaterally changing revenue or Waqf records.
  Eg: Final authority to decide title disputes was restored to the Waqf Tribunal, not revenue officers.
• Cap on non-Muslim representation: Court restricted the number of non-Muslims in Waqf governance bodies.
  Eg: Not more than 4 non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and 3 in State Boards.
• Conditional stay on five-year rule: The requirement for proving five years of Islamic practice was stayed temporarily.
  Eg: Court allowed a stay until the government frames clear rules on verification of practice.
• Protection against misuse of disputed properties: While safeguarding Waqf rights, the court stopped creation of third-party interests during ongoing disputes.

Conclusion

The Waqf Act, 2025 highlights the tension between state oversight and religious autonomy. The Supreme Court’s interim guidelines offer a temporary balance, ensuring fair adjudication and protection of Waqf properties, while prompting the government to devise clear, equitable rules that respect both governance reforms and community rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF