India's government agreed on Thursday to pause a law that Muslims fear could lead to religious sites being seized from their control.
After deadly protests and a legal challenge by Muslim groups, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government told India's Supreme Court it would not appoint non-Muslims to the boards of Waqf sites, an Arabic term for religious endowments such as mosques and cemeteries.
The government also assured the court that it would not change the status of existing Waqf properties while the legal challenge continues, with the next hearing scheduled for May 5. The amendments to India's decades-old Waqf law would give the state a greater role in determining the ownership of religious sites.
At least three people have been killed in street protests against the changes. In West Bengal state, clashes broke out with police at the weekend, while authorities in Uttar Pradesh ordered hundreds of protesters to pay fines worth millions of rupees for wearing black armbands as a sign of protest.
Critics say the new law is unconstitutional and view it as an attempt by a Hindu supremacist government to disempower India's 200 million Muslims. Mr Modi's government said the previous law opened the door to corruption and false claims on Hindu-owned property.
A lawyer for the government said it was freezing the introduction of three contentious clauses, including the appointment of non-Muslims to boards and the possible change of ownership of Waqf properties. Registered sites “will not be disturbed”, Mohammad Sulaiman, one of the petitioners' lawyers, told reporters.
Several politicians, Muslim organisations and rights groups had filed at least a dozen petitions in the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the law governing the multibillion-dollar assets. Asaduddin Owaisi, a leading Muslim parliamentarian and one of the petitioners in the top court, said the law “violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution”.
“This is nothing but to take away our religious right to practise our religion, to establish our religious charitable organisation, to administer it, and to have movable property. It is a violation of the right to equality,” Mr Owaisi told The National.
Billion-dollar assets
The Waqf law covers mosques, madrasas, shelters, graveyards and land donated for religious purposes. With about 900,000 properties valued at an estimated 1.2 trillion rupees ($14 billion), these assets have been managed by independent Waqf boards and tribunals established under the Waqf Act of 1995.
The boards and tribunals, primarily composed of elected and appointed Muslim members, had statutory powers to manage, administer, promote and adjudicate disputes over contested properties.
But Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party government argued that the previous law fostered corruption in the management of charitable bodies and enabled false claims over properties, including those owned by Hindus. Mr Modi called it a “watershed” moment as part of a “collective quest for socio-economic justice, transparency and inclusive growth”.
The government said the amended law, renamed as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act – Umeed or “hope” in Urdu – is aimed at modernising and improving transparency.
The law now allows non-Muslims to be included on the panels and grants government officials the authority to validate Waqf properties, a contentious shift that critics say gives the state sweeping control over these assets, including the power to forfeit claims.
Proof of ownership
One contentious clause is a requirement for legal documentation to claim the property as Waqf, whereas historically, oral declarations, endowments after the end of a family line, or long-standing religious use were enough for recognition.
It also bars non-Muslims from donating property to Waqf, while still allowing them to be beneficiaries, which critics say undermines the spirit of India’s multifaith, diverse, and secular democracy of 1.4 billion people. India’s constitution explicitly allows every religious group to administer and manage their affairs, including religious endowments, with several Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist endowment trusts operating in the country.
Critics say the most significant change is the abolition of Waqf tribunals – quasi-judicial bodies comprising a Muslim law expert, a judge and a senior government official – that have been replaced by a district collector, with the state High Court retaining the final arbitration powers.
Dr Qasim Ilyas, a spokesman for the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which represents different Muslim organisations in the country, fears the new law gives the state unbridled powers.
“The law is 100 per cent pro-government. If the dispute is in the government, then it will not be decided by the Waqf tribunal; it will be decided by the district collector. The officer of the government will decide in favour of whom?” Mr Ilyas said.
The government said the previous boards failed to safeguard the community’s interests. According to official data, about 100,000 Waqf properties are currently the subject of litigation or have been encroached on. However, legal experts blame the government for the loss of the assets.
“The previous act had a provision for surveys. But there was never a survey or audit,” said Anas Tanwir, a Supreme Court advocate. “If there was wrongdoing in the Waqf board, police complaints could’ve been filed or members removed. Why change everything?”
Mr Tanwir acknowledged the past failures of Waqf boards but questioned the sweeping nature of the amendments.
“I don’t see everything in a bad light. The boards have failed in the past. But you don’t shoot the person. This law won’t improve Waqf governance – its core aim is government control and interference.”
Fear of dispossession
He added that many Indian Muslims fear the new law will become a tool to dispossess the community of its land and limit its ability to defend ownership in legal disputes.
Many historic Islamic monuments and religious sites including Eidgah, mosques, and mausoleums are officially Waqf properties, though excluded in the new law. However, right-wing Hindu groups have staked claims on some, saying they were once Hindu temples, such as the medieval Babri Masjid – a Waqf property – that was destroyed by Hindu mobs in 1992 before the top court awarded it to Hindus for the construction of a temple in 2019.
“This fear isn’t unfounded and cannot be seen in isolation,” Mr Tanwir said. “Waqf land is extremely valuable. Giving sole authority to a district collector – someone already burdened with administrative duties and often the government’s representative in Waqf disputes – creates a conflict of interest. You can’t have one party represent both sides in a legal fight. It’s fundamentally unfair.”
