Interview/Asaduddin Owaisi, MP AIMIM chief and MP
You have filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. On what legal provisions are you basing your opposition to the amendments?
It runs against the whole scheme of the Constitution. Not just a single provision. Nonetheless, let me give you an example. Article 14 says that every person shall have equal protection of the law and that there will be equality before the law. The Waqf Act, 1995, gave Muslims the same protections that are given to other religious groups. But the BJP has a “Muslim-exception” for everything. For example, the Hindu Endowment laws of various states mandate that the administration of Hindu Endowments shall only be carried out by Hindus. Yet, the Waqf Amendment Act not only mandates non-Muslim representation in the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards, it allows for a non-Muslim majority council/board. The law is giving Hindus one kind of protection, and denying it to Muslims. This is a clear violation of Article 14.
Article 26 says that every religious denomination—Hindu or Muslim or any other—has the right to establish and administer charitable and religious institutions. This means that only people of that denomination have a right to oversee the property. The Constitution prohibits Parliament from making any law that violates this right. Parliament can only make law to facilitate this right. By making it possible for non-Muslims to administer what are essentially religious institutions, you are in clear violation of Article 26. There are many protections that are enjoyed by non-Muslim endowments, but the Amendment Act denies them to Muslims.
The government argues that national law should prevail over decisions of waqf tribunals, which, under the current system, cannot be challenged in higher courts. How do you respond?
The Waqf Act is a national law, unlike the Hindu Endowment laws, which are all made by states. The government’s argument on tribunals is dubious. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the decisions of tribunals can be reviewed by the High Court and Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 136 respectively. The Law Commission also recommended that tribunals could be improved by ensuring that finality is given to decisions of tribunals, while leaving scope for review. In fact, the Modi government itself abolished many tribunals on the grounds that they lacked finality and their decisions could be appealed before high courts and the Supreme Court.
There have long been concerns about transparency and corruption in the management of waqf properties. Do you believe there was a need for reform?
Reforms as spelled out by experts and the Muslim community have been pending for the longest time. The [new law] does not incorporate any of them. Auqaf (plural of waqf) administration was neglected since independence. There was no uniform law, and in many states, waqf boards were not even constituted. The 1995 Act and its 2013 amendment were meant to fix those problems. However, even these did not carry out the most important reforms.
The biggest issue plaguing auqaf is their wholesale encroachment, sometimes by the Union and state governments themselves. From the Waqf Inquiry Report of 1973 to the Sachar Commission Report to the Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 2011, all of them recommended that waqf boards should have the power to summarily evict encroachers. This power is enjoyed by many Hindu Endowment Boards or endowments officers, but the reform was never made for auqaf. So, if there were concerns about transparency, you should have empowered officers to evict encroachers and then use the recovered property for the benefit of the community. The board members and other officers under the Act are all public servants under the law. If there is corruption, who is stopping you from going after corrupt officers?
The original Waqf Act of 1995 was amended by the UPA government in 2013. How do you assess those amendments?
The 2013 amendments were much needed even if they didn’t go all the way. The 2013 amendments reformed waqf boards, strengthened the survey of waqf properties, increased penal provisions to prevent encroachments, and improved the waqf tribunals. It removed the confusion over whether a non-Muslim could dedicate waqf. Non-Hindus can make Hindu endowments, and there are many cases of Hindus and Muslims donating land for the other community. The 2025 Act undid this amendment. The amendments were brought in after a long deliberation. In 2010, it was discussed by a parliamentary committee chaired by Prof Saifuddin Soz and included BJP MPs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Prakash Javadekar. The BJP supported the 2013 amendment bill when it was passed by Parliament. Another bill was introduced in Parliament to allow for the eviction of encroachers in 2014. But the BJP government withdrew the bill in 2017, despite having promised to introduce the bill in 2015.
Are you satisfied with the current legal definition of waqf, that property legally owned by an individual can be donated, and not land belonging to the government or another person?
It is a redundant amendment. You can only form a waqf if you have the legal right to donate the property. There is no law that allows you to sell or donate any property that you do not own.
The government says the inclusion of non-Muslim members on state waqf boards (SWBs) and the Central Waqf Council (CWC) is for administrative purposes. Why do you believe this arrangement will not work?
There are two issues here. Firstly, the government has mandated the nomination of two non-Muslim members on the SWBs and the CWC. Secondly, the 1995 Act provided for a democratic mechanism of constituting the CWC and SWBs, where its members had to be a majority of Muslims. This is because Article 26 of the Constitution requires that only people from the same religious community administer their religious endowments and charitable institutions. This bill allows these SWBs and CWCs to have non-Muslim majorities. What does the government mean by “administrative purposes”?
Before the standing committee, the government said they are mandating non-Muslim members because non-Muslims can also be “beneficiaries, parties to disputes, or otherwise interested in waqf matters”. The existing law protected the beneficiaries and parties. Look at the irony, this government bars non-Muslims from creating a waqf, but it wants them to be members in CWCs and SWBs. Non-Hindus can also be stakeholders in how Hindu endowments are administered; they can be tenants, donors or neighbours of Hindu endowments. So why are these administered only by Hindus? Let’s take this logic to its logical conclusion. If the BJP believes that people who are affected should be represented in administration and policy, why doesn’t the party have a single Muslim MP? If representation is essential for all “interested parties”, why does the BJP oppose compulsory representation of Muslims in public employment and education? After all, everyone is affected by how the government functions.
Do you agree there have been persistent challenges in adjudicating waqf-related disputes? What solutions do you propose?
The government’s own data shows that the tribunals are functioning fine. According to government data, there are 8.7 lakh waqf properties. The total number of cases in tribunals and other courts is around 19,000. The vast majority of waqf properties are hence not stuck in litigation. Even more importantly, this is what the tribunals have been set up to do: deal with disputes pertaining to auqaaf. This law weakens the tribunal system completely. Earlier, its members were taken from a larger pool of former judges and present civil servants. Now, only a present or former district judge can be appointed.
Similarly, only a civil servant above the rank of joint secretary can be appointed. There is a dearth of senior judges and officers. This will mean that the board cannot be constituted practically. Now, the amendment act allows the government to designate any other tribunal as the waqf tribunal. If no tribunal is constituted, then one can approach the High Court directly. The intention is to make waqf tribunals unworkable in practice. Tribunals are set up so that disputes are handled by specialists, and so that these disputes do not end up in general courts. Hypothetically speaking, a tribunal meant to deal with electricity disputes can be designated as a waqf tribunal. This is absurd.
Which specific provisions in the amended law do you believe infringe upon the rights of Muslims to manage their religious affairs independently?
Besides allowing non-Muslim majority CWCs and SWBs, the amendments also do away with the concept of waqf by user. The concept of ‘user’ is applied to all religious endowments, including waqfs and Hindu Endowments. Let’s say that there is a graveyard that has been in use for decades together. The evidence on record shows that the land was never used as anything but [that]. Suppose a dispute over this graveyard reaches the courts. Because it is an old property, there may not be enough documents to prove that it was dedicated as waqf. The court will look at the evidence on the record to say, “Sure, there may not be documents, but the surrounding facts prove that it was intended to be waqf.” There are Supreme Court cases that uphold the concept of user for both Hindu endowments and Muslim waqf; this includes the Ayodhya judgement as well. As I said, the whole of the amendment act runs against the rights of Muslims.
But maybe one more example will suffice. The act states that a person has to practise Islam for five years in order to qualify for dedication of auqaf. In the eyes of the law, a Hindu is a Hindu if he identifies as a Hindu. It’s the same for any religion. Where is the five-year requirement coming from? What counts as “practising Islam”? If you ask Bollywood, they may say it is applying kohl and wearing a skull cap. But what business does the government have with how I practise my religion?
Another issue being raised is the impact of the new law on waqf properties located near or on ancient protected monuments. Can you explain why this is a concern?
A protected monument can also be waqf simultaneously. This provision was obviously meant to target medieval-era mosques and Muslim places of worship. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, protects the religious character of protected monuments that are also places of worship. The collector is under a duty to protect a place of worship from desecration. There are many Hindu places of worship that are simultaneously protected monuments and also endowments. The primary purpose of waqf law is to ensure that the purpose of a particular waqf is fulfilled. If someone dedicated their property for the construction of a mosque, it should be used as a mosque. If it is a hospital, then it should be run properly as one. The purpose of the 1958 monuments act is to ensure the protection of heritage. There is no conflict between the two. So why was the amendment brought in?
The unfortunate situation is that the ASI, which has been entrusted with protecting monuments, has failed spectacularly in its job. No other country in the world has the concept of “missing monuments”. But the ASI managed to “lose” 92 monuments! Yet, the government believes that the ASI will protect our mosques and dargahs? The real reason is to make it easier to take over our masjids and other places of worship. The Shahi Jama Masjid of Sambhal is a protected monument. The government perhaps wants to remove the protection of the masjid and other such places so that they are not under the administrative control of Muslims any more.