Waqf Amendment Bill: 7 Shocking Reasons Why This Controversial Move is a Dangerous Breach of Trust

The Waqf Amendment Bill marks a significant departure from India’s long-standing secular and inclusive approach to managing religious trusts. Historically, laws like the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 empowered religious communities to oversee their own properties, a principle further enshrined in Article 26 of the Constitution. Over time, Muslim waqf institutions were formalized through laws such as the Waqf Act of 1954 and its 1995 reform, which emphasized autonomy and protection.

However, the recent amendments undermine these protections, especially by weakening concepts like “waqf by user” and applying the Limitation Act solely to Muslim properties. The introduction of a faith-based requirement for waqf donations also contradicts both Islamic tradition and India’s broader interfaith ethos. Critics argue that these changes tilt power away from communities toward top-down government control. This shift not only threatens the legal credibility of waqf institutions but also damages the trust between the state and the Muslim community.

In essence, the amendment is seen as a regressive move that disregards constitutional guarantees, expert input, and India’s pluralistic legal heritage.

Waqf Amendment Bill: 7 Shocking Reasons Why This Controversial Move is a Dangerous Breach of Trust

The idea of a “trust” has long been a pillar of legal systems worldwide. In India, the framework for managing charitable and religious trusts—rooted in British common law—is among the most advanced. Over time, courts and lawmakers have refined how these trusts operate, balancing community needs with legal oversight.

A Legacy of Non-Interference

India’s modern system for religious trusts began with the 1863 Religious Endowments Act, introduced after the British Crown took control from the East India Company. Following the 1857 revolt, the Crown pledged not to meddle in religious matters. This law shifted the management of religious properties from colonial officers to local committees composed of community members. Earlier, the East India Company had tightly controlled temples and mosques through regional laws. Post-1857, communities regained autonomy, though colonial authorities showed little interest in improving how non-Christian trusts were run.

By the 1920s, growing nationalist movements pressured British rulers to strengthen trust governance. Hindu communities in South India led reforms, culminating in the 1927 Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, which became a model for temple management. Muslim communities, however, struggled. The 1923 Mussalman Waqf Act assigned oversight to district courts—a system that failed. Eventually, provinces established waqf boards, inspired by Hindu models, to manage Islamic endowments.

Post-Independence Progress

After 1947, India’s Constituent Assembly debated how to preserve religious trusts while ensuring their charitable goals. Article 26 of the Constitution guaranteed all faiths the right to establish, manage, and own religious institutions. Religious endowments were placed on the Concurrent List, allowing both central and state laws.

The first national waqf law in 1954 created state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council. Reforms in 1995 introduced tribunals to resolve disputes faster. In 2013, amendments based on the Sachar Committee’s recommendations aimed to protect waqf properties from misuse, even earning bipartisan support, including from the BJP.

The New Amendments: A Step Backward

Recent changes to waqf laws, however, mark a sharp break from this legacy. Critics argue they strip Muslim trusts of protections still available to other communities. For instance, the concept of “waqf by user”—which recognized religious sites based on longstanding public use—has been diluted. Meanwhile, Hindu, Christian, and Sikh institutions retain similar protections through customs or implied trusts.

One alarming change applies the Limitation Act exclusively to Muslim waqf properties. This law, which sets deadlines for legal claims, could enable governments or private actors to seize disputed properties after a time limit. No such risk exists for other religious trusts, which remain shielded by permanent safeguards.

Another controversial clause imposes a religious test on donors: only those who “have been Muslim for five years” can create a waqf. This clashes with Islamic principles, which allow non-Muslims to establish waqfs. Historically, India’s interfaith traditions have encouraged charitable contributions across communities. No other charity law in India imposes such faith-based restrictions, making this amendment appear discriminatory.

Undermining Constitutional Rights

The amendments also weaken the Muslim community’s constitutional right under Article 26 to manage its religious affairs. By centralizing power in government-appointed boards, the law replaces community-led governance with bureaucratic control. This shift ignores the Sachar Committee’s warnings about state agencies encroaching on waqf lands. Worse, it risks legitimizing such misuse by easing legal challenges against it.

A Broken Promise

For centuries, India’s legal system has aimed to balance state oversight with respect for religious autonomy. The new waqf laws disrupt this equilibrium, favoring control over collaboration. The credibility of waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council is now at risk, as they may be seen as government tools rather than community advocates.

The amendments reflect a troubling trend: sidelining public consultation, expert input, and India’s secular values. By targeting one community’s institutions, they set a dangerous precedent. Trust—both legal and social—is hard to build but easy to break. This bill, sadly, chooses the latter path.

(Authored by Abdulla NC, a scholar in Waqf studies.)