In a democracy governed by a secular Constitution, reforms involving religious institutions demand the utmost care and balance. The recent amendments to the Waqf Act—passed by Parliament and now receiving presidential assent—aim to bring transparency and prevent misuse of Waqf land.
But are these reforms genuinely about fairness and accountability, or do they represent selective governance threatening fundamental rights?
The Stated Goal: Transparency and Accountability
The government claims that the new amendments intend to:
- Prevent land encroachments.
- Resolve property disputes efficiently.
- Ensure transparency in Waqf Board functioning.
Key Provisions Include:
- Enhanced jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals with binding decisions.
- State governments are empowered to survey Waqf properties.
- Easier removal of encroachments without lengthy litigation.
“On the surface, these appear to be pragmatic, administrative reforms.”
Reforms or Redundancies?
However, many such mechanisms already exist in older laws:
- Waqf Act, 1995: Provided for property registration, dispute resolution, and encroachment removal.
- RTI Act, 2005: Ensured transparency and public accountability.
- Land Acquisition Act, 2013: Protected land rights of individuals and communities, including minorities.
If so much was already in place, do these new provisions represent over-regulation?
Constitutional Dissonance Articles 25 and 26 guarantee the right to manage religious affairs without state interference. This law raises concerns by:
- Allowing unilateral surveys and reclamation of Waqf land.
- Making tribunal decisions final—bypassing civil courts.
- Reducing autonomy in managing religious properties.
Judgments like Shirur Mutt and Sabarimala affirm that the state cannot intrude into essential religious practices except under constitutional obligations.
Why Only Waqf?
If the goal is transparency, why are only one religious institution being targeted?
Temple trusts, church boards, and other religious properties also face corruption. Selective regulation violates Article 14, which ensures equality before the law.
TRUE REFORM MUST BE UNIFORM, NOT TARGETED
A Realist’s Standpoint: Reform Must Be Universal As a constitutional realist, I welcome reforms—but only when:
- They protect minority rights as per Article 30.
- They allow judicial recourse beyond tribunals.
Reforms must uphold trust, inclusivity, and secular values—not undermine them.
Towards Equitable Governance
The Waqf amendment may reflect genuine administrative concerns. Yet, it lacks inclusivity, consistency, and balance. Transparency in religious property governance is welcome—but it must not come at the cost of fundamental rights. In a diverse democracy, legal reform should be a dialogue—not a directive. Let us strive for a framework where transparency and justice intersect with constitutional morality and secular equity.
Featured image from BBC