By Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI: The Karnataka Waqf Board has said that the proposed Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 lacks the standard of the Hindu Endowment laws in the country and threatens the autonomy and effectiveness of the central and state waqf boards.
An analysis of the amendments conducted by a legal team appointed by the board has pointed out that the amendments are “ineffective and detrimental to the management of Islamic endowments nationwide.” The amendment has been sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) which is conducting hearings of various stakeholders.
The legal team was led by Advocate Riyaz Ahmad and supported by retired District Judge Ismail and Advocate Syed Akmal Razvi.
It presented a detailed comparison of the proposed amendments with the existing Waqf Act 1995, and Hindu Endowment laws.
The Karnataka Waqf Board has already presented a summary of their analysis to the Joint Parliamentary Committee(JPC) on the Waqf Amendment Bill during informal discussions with stakeholders in Bengaluru on October 1. Earlier, under state waqf board chairman Anwar Basha, the Board formally objected to the proposed amendments and passed resolutions against the bill.
The report has expressed concern over the introduction of a centralized management structure that erodes state boards’ authority and increases the involvement of the Central Government and Revenue Department.
In contrast, Hindu endowments benefit from a more flexible governance structure, with each state independently managing its own board. These boards, composed solely of Hindu community members, are tailored to the specific needs and practices of local institutions, ensuring that management aligns with community values.
On non-Muslim representation in waqf boards
Under the amendments, the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and each state waqf has been made mandatory in contrast to Hindu Endowments where the appointment of non-Hindus has been completed prohibited, maintaining a homogeneous representation that aligns with the community’s religious practices.
For example, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act mandates that all officials involved must profess Hinduism. Similar provisions exist in other states, reinforcing the homogeneous representation within Hindu institutions.
The legal team asserts that the Waqf Council’s structure violates principles outlined in the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act of 1997, which restricts administrative roles to members of the respective faiths.
The legal team argues that based on “the principles of parity, Hindu and Sikh acts provide for representation from their respective communities only; the same should be applied to Muslims.”
The team has criticized the bill’s provision for determining the representation of different Muslim sects (Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Aghakhani) on the Waqf Board for granting arbitrary power to the government to define “backward classes.” The legal team argues this could hinder effective governance.
The absence of a requirement for the CEO to be Muslim contrasts with the Hindu Religious Institutions Act, where the CEO must be mandatorily a Hindu. The Waqf board’s team has emphasized that there needs to be parity and the waqf board CEO must always be a Muslim and at least a deputy secretary.
Deputy Collector Roles undermine the CEO of the waqf board
Increasing the authority of Deputy Collectors has been viewed in the report as undermining the CEO’s role, especially since similar provisions do not exist for Hindu endowments. The legal team warns about the already heavy workload of Deputy Commissioners.
Centralized Database
The legal team says that the new proposal to register all waqf properties on a centralized could create bureaucratic hurdles, contrasting with Hindu endowments where the government doesn’t interfere. The report suggests that such intervention is unwarranted for waqfs as well.
Omission of Waqf Survey Commissioner
The bill removes the role of a dedicated Survey Commissioner for waqf properties, transferring responsibilities to Collectors, which raises concerns about efficiency and potential conflicts of interest.
Five-Year Practicing Condition
A stipulation requiring individuals to practice Islam for five years before creating a waqf is deemed discriminatory, limiting property management rights.
Waqf by User Clause
The removal of the clause recognizing waqf by user could lead to disputes over properties historically treated as waqf, impacting community access to religious facilities.
Government Claims on Waqf Property
New provisions allow government claims over waqf property and empower Collectors to determine property status, raising concerns about the judiciary’s role and potential arbitrary decision-making.
Survey of Waqf Properties
Important sections related to the preliminary survey of waqf properties are omitted, which could lead to prolonged disputes and complicate property management.
Recovery of Encroached Lands
Deletion of sections that protect waqf properties from the Limitation Act undermines recovery efforts against illegal encroachments.
Dispute Resolution
Amendments complicate dispute resolution by extending the timeframe for filing disputes and omitting the finality of Tribunal decisions, potentially prolonging litigation.
