Victory or defeat? Muslim organisations are raising questions on the Supreme Court's stay on certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024, and the court's refusal to strike down the entire law as unconstitutional.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, an association of Islamic theologians, objected to the apex court's view on 'Waqf by User', and warned the community that mosques and graveyards are at stake.
President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Maulana Mahmood Madani, noted that the organisation had raised several critical concerns before the court, including the extraordinary powers granted to district collectors and administrative officers to determine the nature of Waqf properties, and the abolition of Waqf Tribunals. Such provisions, he said, open the door for state interference in religious affairs. It is, therefore, welcome that the Supreme Court has stayed these provisions and offered partial relief in some clauses, said Madani.
Madani, however, said that the contested issue of 'Waqf by User', remains unresolved. He said India has more than 400,000 Waqf properties classified under 'Waqf by User,' including nearly 119,000 mosques and 150,000 graveyards. More than 80 percent of these are unregistered. The recent amendment has completely abolished the concept of 'Waqf by User', while merely exempting properties already registered as a cosmetic adjustment, said Madani.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind said that removing 'Waqf by User' from the law amounts to rejecting Islamic jurisprudence and centuries-old religious practice. This, he said, directly undermines the religious rights of Muslims guaranteed by the Constitution of India. "Jamiat has always maintained that Waqf is a purely religious issue, and no legislation should contain provisions that compromise its religious character or obstruct the right to religious freedom. For this reason, he asserted, the interim order cannot be considered satisfactory until 'Waqf by User' is fully safeguarded," said Madani.
There are Muslims who contest the assertion that Waqf is a religious issue. Mansoor Khan, president of the Sufi Islamic Board, endorsed the court order in its entirety. "We said earlier that the law is a matter of administration and not religion. The attempt by some leaders to incite the Muslim community has been foiled. The Waqf Board is like any other government administrative authority, such as the collector," said Khan.
Madani, who said the Muslim community will contest the law till all their grievances are addressed, said that the court's remarks in paragraphs 143-152 of its order have further complicated the issue, placing mosques and graveyards in particular jeopardy. The court observed that the abolition of 'Waqf by User' is not prima facie arbitrary, since the requirement of registration has existed since the Waqf Act of 1923. The bench held that if Waqf properties remained unregistered for over a century, no complaint can be entertained now.
Shuaib Khatib, trustee of Mumbai's Jama Masjid, said he blamed community leaders for leaving Waqf properties vulnerable to government control. "We never paid attention to Waqf. In 2008-2009, nearly 190 important Muslim religious trusts filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, saying that they did not want to be part of the Waqf administration. (They preferred to be governed by the Bombay Public Trust Act). We have not kept our religious properties safe for future generations. The Congress party is not speaking out enough against the law. The Supreme Court agreed to stay some provisions of the law. I do not know whether to celebrate or protest," said Khatib.
