
Congress MP and member of the Joint Parliamentary Panel on Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, Syed Naseer Hussain, tells Preetha Nair that the bill will weaken the Muslim community. Exceprts:
JPC chief Jagadambika Pal has denied your charges that some parts of the dissent notes have been omitted. Your take?
The dissent note reflects the viewpoints of members who oppose the bill in its current form. Any selective omission or alteration of its contents undermines parliamentary procedure. If the chairperson denies any omissions, the entire dissent note must be included in the report. If the government is confident in the merits, it should allow dissenting opinions to be recorded transparently. Only unparliamentary language, if any, may be redacted.
The government says the bill will ensure greater transparency and accountability to curb mismanagement of Waqf properties.
The amendments proposed in the bill do not serve the purpose (transparency and accountability). Instead of strengthening Waqf boards, the bill disempowers them by shifting decision-making to government-appointed authorities, particularly district collectors, who may have conflicts of interest. Any reform should aim to strengthen Waqf Boards’ administrative and financial autonomy.
The panel has adopted a revised bill with 14 amendments. The government says concerns about some of the contentious proposals and powers to the district collector have been addressed.
While certain modifications have been made, the core issues remain unresolved. The amendment allowing for a Designated Officer instead of the district collector is merely a cosmetic change, as no qualifications or criteria have been prescribed for such an officer. Also, the ‘Waqf by User’ doctrine has not been fully restored.
The principle of ‘Waqf by User’ is a well-established legal doctrine in Islamic jurisprudence and has been upheld by the Supreme Court in M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das [(2020) 1 SCC 1: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1440 at page 695 1126]. The SC held that oral dedication of Waqf is permissible, and Waqf can be inferred from circumstances or long-standing religious use, even in the absence of a formal deed.
Why do you think the amendments are not in the interest of Waqf and will lead to litigation? What are the most contentious clauses according to you?
The most contentious clauses, even after the JPC recommendations, relate to waqf by user where the Bill unnecessarily seeks to provide a prospective effect to a judicial doctrine/rule of evidence based on registration. Waqf by user, though a provision of the existing Act but is a rule of evidence far earlier in time. The Bill seeks to create confusion around older waqf properties and provides avenues for disputes. Further, from the Waqf Boards to the Tribunal the Bill seeks to weaken these institutions and impinge upon their independence.
The amendments adversely impact the independence of Waqf institutions by shifting key powers to government-appointed officials:
Finality of Tribunal Orders Removed — The removal of finality in Waqf Tribunal decisions will lead to prolonged legal disputes, burdening courts and undermining the effective resolution of Waqf-related matters. This amendment contrasts with other religious endowment laws that uphold Tribunal finality.
Around 15 Tribunals follow this principle of finality, with only high courts having the power to review their decisions. There is no justification for depriving Waqf Tribunals of this essential legal safeguard.
Government Official Roles in Waqf Property Disputes — Instead of Waqf Boards or Tribunals deciding on Waqf properties, the bill allows for government-appointed officials to have the final say, which is a direct conflict of interest.
Dilution of Waqf by User Doctrine — The SC has upheld this principle, yet the bill weakens it.
Democratic Deficit — The shift from elected to nominated bodies weakens Waqf Boards, reducing community representation.
Burden of Compliance — The bill imposes bureaucratic hurdles, including complex documentation and reporting, which many historic Waqfs may not be able to comply with, leading to disputes and possible government takeover.
In your opinion, what is the Centre’s intention with the proposed Bill?
The intention since the beginning is clear - use of the Bill as a political tool by including vague and ill-drafted provisions. The effort certainly is to send a message to the masses that the government is somehow either hurting or taking over waqf properties under the guise of portraying these amendments as a noble effort to revolutionize waqf institutions. However, as any legal commentator with an eye for detail would point out, the amendments only give rise to vagueness and confusion. The amendments create an uneven application of the law and the committee’s so-called curing of the drawbacks in the bill makes the situation worse as already answered above regarding waqf by user and designated officer. The legislations concerning waqf, right from the later part of the 19th Century to the 1913 Act and even the post-independence legislations till the amendment in 2013 sought to provide for legislative framework around the recognized principles of waqf as mandated under the Islamic jurisprudence. This Bill, however, wants to change those very principles by including provisions unknown to Islamic jurisprudence. The intention is therefore reflected in the change to the title of the Act - the legislation for waqfs is being changed into something else which is unknown to the existing waqf jurisprudence.
The Opposition says that the entire JPC proceedings were flawed…
The proceedings in the JPC, it seems, were targeted at steamrolling the Bill and to achieve that purpose neither sufficient time was given to members nor any justification was provided for inviting certain witnesses whose entire career is based on bashing Muslims and their institutions. There was no reason why persons such as Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, amongst others, would be invited to depose in front of the Committee if the intent of the Bill were to support waqf properties as the views and opinions of these persons are out in the open and nothing more is required to be said about that. Further, these witnesses were allowed to depose even after the members walked out and no minutes of their depositions were provided to the members to form an informed opinion. The manner in which a 655-page report was rushed through without giving members any time to deliberate upon the same is the most evident procedural flaw in the entire proceedings, reducing the referral of the bill to the JPC as a mere empty formality.
Why do you say that the Bill will crush the minorities? What would be the repercussions if the Bill is passed in Parliament?
As already stated the Bill is not a legislative enactment but a political propaganda to send out a message to a certain group of people that the government is taking over the waqf administration and to validate conspiracy theories existing around the waqf administration. The Bill drastically reduces Muslim representation from the CWC and the Boards, tinkers with the fundamental waqf jurisprudence, provides further avenues for frivolous litigations based on communal claims and provides for excessive and overarching government interference in the management of waqf administration. While the provisions would lead to vagueness and uncertainty, the overall effect would be to heighten communal tension.
What would be the Opposition’s next course of action if the Bill gets passed?
Members of Parliament are public representatives and answerable to their electorate. Even the present government exists by relying on a coalition of parties, the largest of whom has a large Muslim electorate. Thus there is no question of this Bill getting passed from the Parliament and we are confident that any sane Member of the Parliament/ Political Party would venture to back this political propaganda termed as a Bill without betraying their electorate. The opposition would certainly highlight the issues in the Bill during the discussions in the Parliament unless the parliamentary debate is reduced to a formality as has been seen so far with this government.