Supreme Court Intervenes on Waqf Law, Curbing Excessive Powers

The Supreme Court has upheld the Muslim Waqf Amendment Act enacted by Parliament but has also imposed an interim stay on amendments to some of its provisions. Both the plaintiff and defendant parties have conditionally supported this decision of the country's highest court. This suggests that the court has adopted a middle path and attempted to maintain balance in its decision. However, the question remains as to how the Muslim Waqf Board can assert its claim on government properties, when in a democracy, the democratically elected government has the final say over all properties. It is also legitimate to question whose land was used when Pakistan was created in 1947, dividing India solely on the basis of religion. Pakistan was created on Indian soil, not Waqf land. Therefore, India paid a heavy price for the religious barriers it erected in 1947, which cannot be extended at any cost now.

The issue is not about Hindus and Muslims, but about India's identity, and India's identity dictates that India belongs to everyone, including Hindus and Muslims. Accounting for Waqf properties is of no use; providing an account of the financial situation of India's Muslims is beneficial. The reality is that 90 percent of India's Muslims are impoverished. Who will account for the benefits they have received from the vast Waqf assets? Regarding the Waqf Amendment Act, the Supreme Court granted an interim ruling that the Central Waqf Board will have a maximum of four non-Muslim members and the State Boards will have a maximum of three non-Muslim members, with preference given to Muslim citizens for the chairmanship positions. The court struck down Section 3(1)(r) of the amended Act. Parliament had amended the law to mandate that only those who had been practicing Islam for the past five years could establish a Waqf. The court ordered that this law will remain in effect until the state or central government enacts a concrete rule or law in this regard. The court also struck down Section 3C(2) of the law, which states that in the event of a dispute over encroachment, a property will not be considered Waqf property until a government official submits a final report. Furthermore, the amendment requiring corrections to government records upon a government official's declaration of Waqf property as government property has been struck down. The bill had provided for the state government to submit a report in this regard. The same law also stipulated that, upon receiving the government official's report, the state government would order the relevant corrections to the records.

The court refused to accept the government official's report as final. Muslim organizations had been raising the issue that the amended law granted unlimited powers to government officials or district magistrates, rendering the Waqf Board's authority meaningless. The Supreme Court stated that constitutionality is the highest criterion for any law, and therefore, government officials can only be empowered to act within the constitutional framework. However, the Waqf Board Act has been amended several times since independence. However, the amendments made by the then Narasimha Rao government after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 created a parallel, independent power for the Waqf Board. These amendments granted the Board unlimited revenue powers and severely limited court intervention.

This is why Muslim organizations across the country are not fully satisfied with the Supreme Court's latest decision and are stating that their fight will continue until the new amendment law is completely repealed. Because the Supreme Court has supported the abolition of the concept of Waqf by User. The Act passed by Parliament states that the concept of Waqf by User is fundamentally against the law or the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has upheld this amendment and stated that it is not an arbitrary step. The Court stated that if the government discovers that a large number of government properties have been encroached upon under the concept of Waqf by User, how can the abolition of this provision be considered arbitrary? However, the Court also emphasized the separation of powers under a democratic and constitutional system, stating that the District Collector cannot be empowered to determine citizens' property rights. The executive cannot do this. In India, citizens' right to property is a constitutional right. Therefore, court orders should be considered final in matters of property, and orders of the Tribunal or High Court in matters of Waqf property.