The Curious Case Of Waqf

The Waqf (Amendment) Act has once again raised questions about the BJP government라이브 바카라 true intentions on issues concerning Muslims in the country. Is this Act aimed at initiating a reform process within the numerous unwieldy Waqf boards, or is it a move to weaken their power?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is the result of hundreds of complaints from Muslims, including women and widows, against the earlier system, which, he claimed, did not work for them.

During a meeting with a delegation of the Dawoodi Bohra community, Modi said he had received more than 1,700 complaints about Waqf properties from various Muslim communities after his re-election in 2019. On April 4, the Upper House cleared the Bill, with 128 members voting in favour and 95 against the legislation.

Modi said the new law would empower victims, especially widows, and bring justice to the poorest. But the Opposition, Muslim bodies and civil society have slammed it as a land grab that threatens constitutional religious freedoms and disenfranchises minorities by seizing Waqf land meant for charity.

Is the Waqf (Amendment) Act a case of arbitrary government overreach? Is it another step towards curtailing the personal laws that govern marriages and inheritances in India? Is the new law yet another attempt at the dispossession of Muslim identity? Or is it a genuine effort at reform, aimed at benefiting the poor and Muslim widows?

The Supreme Court questioned the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, asking whether Muslims would ever be appointed to Hindu religious trusts. It said only Muslims should serve, barring ex-officio members from government, who may belong to any religion.

The Court also observed that any property that a court has already declared as Waqf—whether through usage (Waqf by user) or official notification—should not be stripped of that status or treated as non-Waqf.

The Waqf controversy has once again brought focus to Article 26 of the Constitution, which provides that, subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right: (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State of Bombay (1962), the Supreme Court held that the State cannot intrude into matters essential to religion. In the Shirur Mutt case (1954), the apex court ruled that the right to administer religious property is a fundamental right and that “public interest” cannot be arbitrarily applied in such cases. Similarly, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954), the Court stated that the administration of property by a religious denomination is a matter of religion under Article 26(b) and (d). It further clarified that any regulation must be in accordance with law and must not destroy the religious character or autonomy of the trust.

This once again brings to the forefront the questions regarding secular responsibility and religious autonomy provided under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

Similar questions were raised when the government moved to abolish triple talaq, a practice in Islam through which divorce could be granted without a court process. The Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act in 2019, making triple talaq a non-bailable and punishable offence. There can be no argument in support of a practice that rendered women라이브 바카라 agency completely powerless. But was the government라이브 바카라 intention to protect women라이브 바카라 rights—or to teach Muslim men a lesson?

The hijab controversy too had similar contours. A government college in Udupi, Karnataka, banned Muslim girls from wearing the hijab to class. Was the hijab a regressive practice in Islam targeting women, or was it about freedom of choice? Many believe the government라이브 바카라 push to implement the Uniform Civil Code in other states—like in Uttarakhand, where it is already law—is also aimed at Muslim personal law.

Th first political test of the fallout from the Waqf Act will be the Bihar state elections, slated for later this year. Will it help the BJP consolidate its position, or will it give the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Prashant Kishor라이브 바카라 new political party, Jan Suraaj, ammunition to win the Muslim vote?

This article is part of 바카라라이브 바카라 May 01, 2025 issue 'Username Waqf' which looks at the Waqf Amendment Act of 2025, its implications, and how it is perceived by the Muslim community.