The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, represents one of the most significant reforms to Waqf laws in India, with the most critical change being the abolition of Section 40. This provision, which previously allowed Waqf Boards to unilaterally declare any land as Waqf property, has been a subject of controversy for years. Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, in a heated debate in Parliament, described Section 40 as "the most draconian" aspect of the Waqf Act, arguing that its removal would prevent its alleged misuse and curb arbitrary land conversions. He emphasized that this amendment does not take away any land from the Muslim community but rather ensures a more transparent and accountable system for managing Waqf properties.
The Bill, which will be renamed the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Bill, is being positioned as a landmark step towards modernization and regulation. Rijiju clarified that the amendment is retrospective, meaning that it will apply to past decisions and claims as well. This, according to him, is crucial in addressing thousands of pending land disputes and ensuring that properties are not wrongfully categorized as Waqf. He highlighted that under the previous law, once the Waqf Board declared a property as Waqf, it could not be challenged in a civil court, leaving many property owners without legal recourse.
Currently, Waqf Boards across India manage approximately 8.72 lakh properties spanning over 9.4 lakh acres. There are 30 Waqf Boards operating in different states, all of which have been vested with the authority to determine whether a property qualifies as Waqf land. Under the existing Act, if a property was designated as Waqf land, only the Waqf Tribunal could review the decision, and its ruling was deemed final, with no scope for appeal in a regular court. The new amendment seeks to rectify this by shifting the power to determine Waqf property status to the District Collector, thus ensuring a more structured and government-supervised approach. Additionally, it removes the finality of Waqf Tribunal decisions, now allowing for appeals in high courts within a 90-day window.
Rijiju, while defending the Bill, argued that Section 40 had been systematically exploited, leading to an exponential increase in Waqf properties. He cited official figures stating that there are currently over 40,000 legal disputes related to Waqf properties across the country. According to him, the unchecked expansion of Waqf properties had led to widespread concerns, with allegations that the provision was being used to convert private and government-owned land into Waqf land without proper legal backing. He asserted that the new Bill would prevent such arbitrary conversions, making the process more accountable and legally sound.
However, the proposed changes have sparked fierce opposition, particularly from the Trinamool Congress. Party MP Kalyan Banerjee argued that removing Section 40 would effectively render the Waqf Boards powerless. "If Section 40 is deleted, the Waqf Board will be a toothless doll… a doll only. If this section is deleted, then there is no necessity to keep the Waqf Board itself," he remarked in Parliament. Critics of the Bill argue that it weakens the autonomy of Waqf institutions and could lead to unnecessary government interference in religious affairs.
BJP leaders, on the other hand, maintain that the “misuse” of Section 40 has created legal and communal tensions across India. Rijiju provided examples of Christian and Sikh communities who had raised concerns about their lands being classified as Waqf property without proper justification. He pointed to Cherai, a fishing village in Kerala, where over 600 Christian families and a local church had approached the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill after their land was allegedly declared Waqf property. Similarly, he cited the case of Haryana’s Jathlana village, where a gurdwara’s land was also claimed as Waqf land, leading to unrest and legal challenges.
Another significant change introduced by the Bill is the removal of the ‘Waqf by user’ provision, which previously allowed properties to be classified as Waqf land based solely on prolonged religious use. Under the new law, only a Muslim who has been practicing Islam for at least five years will be eligible to create a Waqf, and even then, the property must be self-owned. This change is aimed at preventing arbitrary claims over land simply because it has been used for religious purposes for a long time.
To further illustrate the impact of the previous law, Rijiju mentioned hypothetical scenarios in which major public properties, such as Parliament, Delhi Airport, and the CGO Complex, could have been declared Waqf land under the old provisions. "With the abolition of Section 40, no land can now be unilaterally declared Waqf property," he stated. He reassured Parliament that the amendments would ensure a fair and transparent system while preventing any undue advantage from being taken under the guise of religious property management.
Despite the government’s reassurances, opposition parties and several Muslim organizations continue to raise concerns about the implications of the Bill. They argue that it undermines the fundamental purpose of Waqf institutions, which is to serve charitable and religious causes. The debate over the UMEED Bill is likely to continue, with legal and political challenges expected in the coming months. However, if passed, it will fundamentally reshape the legal framework governing Waqf properties in India, bringing significant changes to how religious land holdings are regulated and disputed.
