The proposed Waqf (Amendment) Bill, ostensibly framed to "reform" the governance of Waqf properties under the Waqf Act, 1995, constitutes a constitutionally suspect legislative maneuver that disproportionately targets India’s Muslim minority. Its provisions violate the principles of secularism, equality, and religious autonomy enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution, while perpetuating systemic discrimination against minorities in contravention of international human rights obligations.
The bill’s proposal to induct non-Muslim members into Waqf Boards flagrantly infringes upon the absolute right of religious denominations under Article 26 to manage their own religious affairs. Waqf, as a quintessentially Islamic institution rooted in Sharia principles, is governed by specific theological mandates that require trusteeship (mutawalli) and oversight to align with Islamic jurisprudence. The imposition of non-Muslim members, who lack doctrinal competence, into governance structures constitutes state interference in religious practice, undermining the constitutional guarantee of autonomy under Article 26(b). This contrasts starkly with the state’s hands-off approach to Hindu religious endowments (governed by state-specific Acts) or Christian charitable trusts, which retain exclusive denominational control. Such discriminatory singling out of Muslim institutions violates the equality clause (Article 14) and perpetuates an asymmetrical application of secularism, reducing it to majoritarian appeasement.
Further, the bill’s transfer of authority to declare properties as Waqf from Waqf Boards to government-appointed officials (e.g., District Commissioners) represents an unconstitutional usurpation of quasi-judicial functions by the executive. Under the 1995 Act, Waqf Tribunals, specialized bodies with expertise in Islamic law, adjudicate disputes to ensure doctrinal fidelity. By shifting this power to bureaucrats, the bill violates principles of natural justice, as state officials lack the theological and legal expertise required to interpret Waqf deeds (waqfiyya). This undermines the rule of law by replacing specialized tribunals with a politicized executive, risking arbitrary or biased decisions contrary to Article 14’s guarantee of equality before law. It also infringes on due process under Article 21, as disputes over religious endowments demand adjudication by bodies versed in the relevant religious law— a safeguard denied to Muslims alone. This move mirrors broader efforts to dilute minority institutions through bureaucratic overreach, setting a dangerous precedent for state control over all religious trusts.
The bill’s enhanced scrutiny of Waqf properties— absent parallel measures for Hindu, Sikh, or Christian trusts— violates the essential secular character of India’s constitutional framework. The state’s selective intervention in Muslim endowments, under the guise of “transparency” or “modernization,” constitutes invidious discrimination under Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion. This discrimination is exacerbated by the broader socio-political context, including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), which excludes Muslims from its purview; proposals for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) targeting Muslim personal law; and demolitions of Muslim-owned properties under municipal pretexts. Such systemic marginalization reveals a pattern of legislative othering, reducing secularism to a majoritarian tool and violating Article 25’s guarantee of freedom of conscience and free profession of religion.
The bill’s delegation of Waqf governance to non-expert bureaucrats exceeds the permissible limits of delegated legislation under constitutional jurisprudence. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that core functions of specialized bodies cannot be transferred to the executive without violating separation of powers. Similarly, in India, the Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) held that the judiciary’s independence is sacrosanct. By dismantling Waqf Tribunals, the bill subverts institutional autonomy, rendering it ultra vires the doctrine of separation of powers.
India’s obligations under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protect minorities’ rights to religious and cultural autonomy, are further breached by the bill. The UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues has repeatedly cautioned against laws that “disproportionately affect religious minorities under the guise of governance reforms”—a descriptor fitting the Waqf Bill.
With over 600,000 registered Waqf properties valued at ₹1.2 lakh crore, the Muslim community relies on these assets for educational, healthcare, and housing support. By transferring control to state actors, the bill risks alienation of Waqf lands through mismanagement or outright expropriation, deepening socio-economic disparities. This violates Article 39(b) of the Directive Principles, which mandates equitable distribution of community resources.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill is not merely a regulatory overhaul but a calculated erosion of minority rights that weaponizes state machinery to dilute Islamic institutions. Its provisions contravene constitutional guarantees of equality, secularism, and religious freedom, while aligning with a broader agenda of marginalizing Muslims. If enacted, it would institutionalize discrimination, erode trust in governance, and further fracture India’s pluralist ethos. Judicial intervention is imperative to scrutinize the bill’s constitutionality, safeguard minority rights, and uphold the Basic Structure doctrine against majoritarian encroachment. The state must withdraw this pernicious legislation and reaffirm its commitment to equality—not merely in rhetoric, but in constitutional practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment