The Waqf Amendment Act is back in focus as the Supreme Court of India prepares to deliver its interim order on Monday. The case has become one of the most closely watched legal battles of the year, as it questions the powers of Waqf boards, the inclusion of non-Muslims in their functioning, and the controversial doctrine of ‘waqf by user’.
Background of the Case
The Waqf system in India traces its roots to Islamic endowments, where property is dedicated for religious, charitable, or community purposes. Over the years, the Waqf Boards have become some of the largest landowners in the country, managing properties that run into lakhs of acres.
The Waqf Amendment Act, introduced to streamline governance and resolve disputes, has instead triggered a series of legal challenges. Petitioners have argued that several provisions of the Act undermine constitutional principles of equality and secularism. The central government has defended the law as necessary for transparency and better management of Waqf properties.
Issues Under Scrutiny
As the Supreme Court considers its interim order, two key questions dominate the debate:
- Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards – A section of the Waqf Amendment Act allows the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards. Critics argue that this violates the religious autonomy of the Waqf system, while supporters say it ensures accountability and prevents mismanagement.
- Waqf by User – Another contentious provision is the recognition of ‘waqf by user’, where land or property is considered Waqf not by explicit endowment, but by long-term usage for religious or community activities. Petitioners claim this opens the door for arbitrary claims over private property, while defenders see it as a recognition of historical community practices.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Several petitioners, including civil society groups and property owners, have challenged the Waqf Amendment Act on multiple grounds:
- It allegedly violates property rights by enabling the takeover of land without proper documentation.
- It risks eroding secular principles, as Waqf boards exercise wide-ranging powers over lands that may belong to non-Muslims.
- It could lead to legal uncertainty, with thousands of disputes arising from claims of ‘waqf by user’.
One petitioner’s counsel told the court:
“The doctrine of waqf by user undermines legal ownership. It allows property to be declared Waqf without explicit dedication, thereby violating constitutional protections.”
Government’s Defence
The Union government has strongly defended the law, asserting that the Waqf Amendment Act was passed to introduce transparency and efficiency in Waqf property management. It maintains that:
- Including non-Muslims in boards is consistent with secular governance and ensures accountability.
- Recognizing waqf by user acknowledges centuries-old community traditions, preventing disputes and misuse.
- The Act strengthens regulatory oversight and prevents corruption in one of the largest property management systems in India.
Supreme Court’s Role
The Supreme Court’s interim order on Monday will not be the final word, but it is expected to set the tone for future hearings. The bench is likely to decide whether to put parts of the law on hold while detailed arguments are considered.
Legal experts say the court faces a delicate balance—between respecting religious autonomy, upholding constitutional rights, and ensuring that vast community assets are not misused.
Wider Implications
The verdict on the Waqf Amendment Act has far-reaching consequences:
- Property Owners – Thousands of individuals have challenged Waqf claims on their land, making the court’s decision crucial for property rights.
- Religious Institutions – The autonomy of Islamic endowments is at stake, with questions about how far the state can intervene.
- Secular Governance – The inclusion of non-Muslims in religious boards raises constitutional debates that may go beyond Waqf law.
Conclusion
As India awaits the Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf Amendment Act, the stakes are high. The case combines questions of religious autonomy, constitutional principles, and property rights into one of the most significant legal debates in recent years.
While the final outcome may take months, if not years, Monday’s ruling will indicate how the judiciary plans to approach the sensitive balance between law, faith, and governance.