In August 2024, the Indian political landscape was charged with intense debates over the proposed Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The bill sought to introduce significant changes to the existing Waqf Act of 1995, which governs the administration of Waqf properties—assets dedicated to religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law. The proposed amendments included renaming the act to the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 1995, and ensuring representation of Muslim women and non-Muslims in Waqf boards.
On August 8, 2024, Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of Parliament. The introduction was met with vehement opposition from various political parties, who labeled the bill as “draconian” and an “attack on the Constitution.” Congress MP K.C. Venugopal was among the prominent voices opposing the bill, asserting that it violated the freedom of religion and undermined the federal structure of the nation.
Venugopal’s concerns were echoed by other opposition leaders. Samajwadi Party MP Mohibullah Nadvi argued that appointing non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council and other such bodies infringed upon the rights of Muslims. Trinamool Congress MP Sudip Bandhopadhyay described the bill as divisive, anti-constitutional, and against the principles of federalism. Similarly, DMK MP Kanimozhi highlighted that the bill violated Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the right to administer their institutions.
Amidst the uproar, the bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny. However, the proceedings of the JPC became a focal point of controversy. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh accused the committee of bypassing democratic norms by not conducting a clause-by-clause discussion of the bill. He alleged that dissenting voices from opposition MPs were ignored and that the bill was “bulldozed” through the committee without adequate deliberation.
Ramesh’s criticisms extended beyond the procedural aspects of the bill’s passage. He contended that the manner in which the JPC handled the bill did not uphold democratic processes, setting a concerning precedent for parliamentary procedures. He emphasized that in the history of the Indian Parliament, it was unprecedented for a bill to be passed without a thorough clause-by-clause analysis in a JPC.
In defense of the bill, Minister Rijiju asserted that the amendments were intended to bring about reforms that previous administrations had failed to implement. He claimed that certain individuals had monopolized Waqf Boards and that the bill aimed to deliver justice to ordinary Muslims. Rijiju also noted that the bill sought to address issues such as the wrongful declaration of properties as Waqf and to introduce a more transparent registration process through a central portal and database.
The bill also proposed the establishment of separate boards of Auqaf for communities like the Bohras and Aghakhanis, aiming to ensure representation of various Muslim sects and other backward classes within the Muslim community. However, critics argued that the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards was inappropriate, drawing parallels to the improbability of appointing Muslims or Christians to boards managing Hindu temples.
The debate over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, underscored the complexities involved in reforming religious and charitable institutions in India. While the government advocated for the bill as a necessary step towards transparency and inclusivity, opposition parties perceived it as an infringement on religious freedoms and an assault on constitutional principles. The controversy highlighted the delicate balance between implementing reforms and respecting the autonomy of religious communities in a diverse and pluralistic society.
As of March 2025, the bill’s status remains a contentious issue, reflecting the broader debates about minority rights, federalism, and the role of the state in religious affairs in India.
