List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of State of NCT Of Delhi v. Puran Singh has held that an FIR to be registered against the Police whenever an allegedly fake encounter is reported.

What was the Background of the State of NCT Of Delhi v. Puran Singh Case?

• In the present case, First Information Report (FIR) was filed under Section 186, Section 353, Section 307, Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 & Section 27 Arms Act, 2019 (AA).
• The Special Team of Crime Branch, Rohini, Delhi had information that a dreaded, hardcore and desperate criminal Manoj @ Morekheri having a syndicate of associates, who had indulged in the offences of murder, extortion, collecting protection money from businessmen etc., was present in the area of Alipur, Delhi.
• The accused and other gang members were found in the car and when the Police tried catching them by firing in sueded between them which led to death one of the criminal named Rakesh @ Raka (deceased).
• The postmortem report also stated that the cause of the death was previous injuries on the lower back of the accused which got escalated due to the bullet shot.
• It was also argued that the incident had been thoroughly enquired into by the Sub Divisional Magistrate who concluded that the bullets were fired by the Police Officials in an act of self-defense to save themselves from the occupant of the car who had fired upon them.
• Shri Puran Singh (respondent), father of the deceased filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 27 AA for causing death of his son.
• It was further contended that none of the three accused persons who were allegedly running to escape, had fired towards the police and none of the police officials received any injury.
• The Inspection Report of the car also established that the firing was done from all sides of the car as all the wind screens were broken, while Rakesh was found injured and lying in blood on the back seat.
• The deceased was not armed with any firearm, was first mercilessly beaten and then the gunshot was fired upon him, and it was a clear case of murder and not encounter.
• The cognizance was taken before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) who ordered the registration of FIR against the Police officials under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
• The order was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge who confirmed the order of CMM.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Courts the present petition was filed before the Delhi High Court.
• The police took ground under Section 197 of CrPC that previous sanction is required to file an FIR against the police officials.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Delhi High Court observed that any act done extra judicially must be examined with due care to meet the ends of justice.
• The Delhi High Court referred to various judgements and inferred that the police cannot use Section 197 of CrPC (now Section 218 of BNSS) as a protective barrier against all acts.
• The Delhi High Court stated that Section 197 of CrPC protects the police officials only against those acts which are done in discharge of their duty.
• It is rightly held by the Delhi High Court that an FIR to be registered against the Police whenever an allegedly fake encounter is reported.

What is Fake Encounter?

About:

• It is an act of extra-judicially killing of persons who are reported as criminals in various occasions and are under the custodies of law enforcement agencies.
• This act is done without following the due process of law.
• Encounters are a violation of Human rights.
• Fake encounters are rapidly increasing which also violated the fundamental and constitutional rights of the victims.

Legal Provisions Related to Encounters in India:

• There are no direct provisions related to encounter in India while certain provisions empower the police officials or other investigating agencies to take the necessary actions when required as per the following provisions.
• Section 34 to Section 44 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) states the provisions related to arrest how to be made and also states the circumstances such as death grievous hurt, rape, acid attack where a person causing death in exercise of his private defense will be exempted from the legal liabilities.
• Section 43 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita empowers, 2023(BNSS) enables the Police officers to cause death at the time of the arrest to an accused who is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• Section 4 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act confers special power on the Armed forces where it enables the officials to take necessary actions against the accused whenever necessary.

Rights of Victims of Fake Encounters:

• The victims of the fake encounters have the right to bring the suit against the officials as per the following provisions:
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India (COI): As per this Article 14, the State shall not deny equality to any person before law but due to encounter the right of the person to present himself and face the trial got waived.
  • Article 21 of COI: Article 21 Ensures no one should be deprived of personal right and liberty, which also protects the person having a criminal history.
  • Article 22 of the COI: Article 22 gives certain rights to an accused person presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
  • Section 100 of BNS: Section 100 of BNS is also available against the officials to be convicted for the act of fake encounters.

Guidelines Against Fake Encounters:

Supreme Court Guidelines

• In the PUCL v. State of Maharashtra case (2014), the Supreme Court was dealing with writ petitions questioning the genuineness of 99 encounter killings by the Mumbai Police in which 135 alleged criminals were shot dead between 1995 and 1997.
• The Supreme Court then laid down the following 16 point guidelines as the standard procedure to be followed for thorough, effective, and independent investigation in the cases of death during police encounters:
  • Record Tip-off: Whenever the police receives any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal activities pertaining to the commission of a grave criminal offence, it must be recorded either in writing or electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is headed.
  • Register FIR: If in pursuance to a tip-off, the police uses firearms and this results in the death of a person, then an FIR initiating proper criminal investigation must be registered and be forwarded to the Court without any delay.
  • Independent Probe: Investigation into such death must be done by an independent CID team or a police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer. It has to fulfil eight minimum investigation requirements like, identify the victim, recover and preserve evidentiary material, identify scene witnesses, etc.
  • Magisterial Probe: Mandatory magisterial inquiry into all cases of encounter deaths must be held and a report thereof must be sent to the Judicial Magistrate.
  • Inform NHRC: The NHRC or State Human Rights Commission (as the case may be) must be immediately informed of the encounter death.
  • Medical Aid: It must be provided to the injured victim/criminal and a Magistrate or Medical Officer must record his statement along with the Certificate of Fitness.
  • No Delay: Ensure forwarding FIR, panchnamas, sketch, and police diary entries to the concerned Court without any delay.
  • Send Report to Court: After full investigation into the incident, a report must be sent to the competent Court ensuring expeditious trial.
  • Inform Kin: In the case of death of accused criminal, their next of kin must be informed at the earliest.
  • Submit Report: Bi-annual statements of all encounter killings must be sent to the NHRC by the DGPs by a set date in set format.
  • Prompt Action: Amounting to an offence under the IPC, disciplinary action must be initiated against the police officer found guilty of wrongful encounter and for the time being that officer must be suspended.
  • Compensation: The compensation scheme as described under Section 357-A of the CrPC (now Section 396 of BNSS) must be applied for granting compensation to the dependants of the victim.
  • Surrendering Weapons: The concerned police officer(s) must surrender their weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, subject to the rights mentioned under Article 20 of the Constitution.
  • Legal Aid to Officer: An intimation about the incident must be sent to the accused police officer’s family, offering services of lawyer/counsellor.
  • Promotion: No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry awards shall be bestowed on the officers involved in encounter killings soon after the occurrence of such events.
  • Grievance Redressal: If the victim's family finds that the above procedure has not been followed, it may complain to the Sessions Judge with territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. The concerned Sessions Judge must look into the merits of the complaint and address the grievances raised therein.
• The Court directed that these requirements/norms must be strictly observed in all cases of death and grievous injury in police encounters by treating them as law declared under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution.

NHRC Guidelines

• In March 1997, Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah (the then chairperson of the NHRC), in the backdrop of increased complaints from the general public and non-governmental organisations related to instances of fake encounters by the police underlined that the police have not been conferred with any right to take away someone's life, except under two circumstances:
  • If the death is caused in the exercise of the right to private defence.
  • Section- 43 of the BNSS, authorizes the police to use force, extending up to the causing of death, as may be necessary to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
• In the light of this notion, the NHRC asked all states and Union Territories to ensure that police follow the following set of guidelines in cases of encounter killings:
  • Register: When the in-charge of a Police Station receives information about the deaths in an encounter, he shall record that information in the appropriate register.
  • Investigation: Received information shall be regarded as sufficient to suspect and immediate steps must be undertaken to investigate the relevant facts and circumstances leading to the death so as to ascertain, if any, offence was committed and by whom.
  • Compensation: It can be granted to the dependents of the deceased when the police officers are prosecuted on the basis of the results of the investigation.
  • Independent Agency: Whenever the police officers belonging to the same police station are the members of the encounter party, it is appropriate that the cases for investigation are referred to some other independent investigation agency, such as State CID.
• In 2010, NHRC extended these guidelines by including:
  • Registering FIR: When a complaint is made against police alleging committing of a criminal act recognized as cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR must be registered under appropriate sections of the IPC.
  • Magisterial Probe: A magisterial enquiry must be held in all cases of death which occurs in the course of police action, as expeditiously as possible (preferably within three months).
  • Reporting to Commission: All cases of deaths in police action in the states shall be preliminary reported to the Commission by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the District within 48 hours of such death.
  • A second report must be sent in all cases to the Commission within three months providing information like post mortem report, findings of the magisterial enquiry/enquiry by senior officers, etc.
• The Supreme Court guidelines observed that the involvement of NHRC is not mandatory unless there is serious doubt that the investigation was not impartial.

Landmark Judgements:

• Anil Kumar and Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr (2013): The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot refer to a matter under Section 156(3) for registration of FIR against a public servant without a valid Sanction Order. Therefore, any cognizance of offence against a Police official is barred unless a Sanction is obtained from an appropriate Authority, under Section 197 of CrPC.
• Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013): It was observed that two crucial guidelines given by NHRC that the investigations into the encounter death must be done by an independent Investigating Agency and that registration of FIR in case whenever a complaint is made against the Police making out a case of culpable homicide, had not been complied with.
• Vinothini v. The State and Ors. (2023): Wherein the court had reiterated the NHRC Guidelines and also stated that the registration of FIR is mandatory against the police officials if they are involved in an encounter killing.
• Devender Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016): It was observed that it is not a part of official duty to commit an offence. Hence, the question of sanction may not be relevant at the initial stage but at any stage during trial.
• Bakhshish Singh v. Gurmej Kaur (1988): The Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that to determine whether the Police Officer while acting in his official duty, had exceeded the limits of his official capacity or not, the cognizance of the offence has to be taken and in these circumstances, trial shall not be stayed for the want of sanction for the prosecution of the accused officer.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that jail authorities cannot deny furlough or parole to a convict solely based on their youth and marital status. The court directed the Special Inspector General of Prisons to reconsider Prahlad Gupta’s application for furlough. The decision challenges the notion that young, unmarried individuals are more likely to flee, emphasizing that such assumptions should not determine parole eligibility.

• Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali Joshi held this in the case of Prahlad Feku Gupta v. State of Maharashtra.

What was the Background of Prahlad Feku Gupta v. State of Maharashtra Case?

• The petitioner, Prahlad Gupta, is serving life imprisonment for offenses including murder, house trespass, and destruction of evidence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• After serving approximately 4 years and 5 months of his sentence, Gupta applied for 28 days of furlough leave on 8^th May, 2023.
• The Special Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur denied the furlough application on 11^th September, 2023.
• The denial was primarily based on a negative report from the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj District, Uttar Pradesh.
• The report cited concerns about Gupta's age (26 years) and unmarried status as factors indicating a risk of absconding.
• Gupta filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
• The petition challenged the order of the Special Inspector General of Prison denying furlough.
• Gupta sought to quash the impugned order and requested the court to direct the authorities to grant him furlough leave.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, ruled that a convict's unmarried status and young age alone are insufficient grounds for denying furlough, emphasizing that prison authorities must independently assess furlough applications beyond police reports.
• The Court stressed the importance of furlough in maintaining family connections and aiding rehabilitation, noting that prolonged incarceration without family contact is detrimental to both the inmate and society.
• The Bench quashed the Special Inspector General of Prison's order denying furlough and directed a fresh consideration of the application, stating that the risk of absconding can be mitigated through appropriate conditions.
• The judgment affirmed furlough as a legal right of convicts (subject to statutory conditions) and ordered the granting of furlough within three weeks, underlining the need for authorities to exercise judicious discretion in such decisions.
• These ruling highlights the balance between public safety and the rehabilitative goals of the correctional system, advocating for a more nuanced approach to furlough decisions.

What is Furlough?

• A furlough is a temporary release of a prisoner from custody, granted for specific purposes such as maintaining family ties or addressing urgent personal matters.
• It is generally considered a matter of right for eligible prisoners, subject to certain conditions and regulations, unlike parole which is more discretionary.
• The primary purpose of furlough is to enable prisoners to maintain social connections and family relationships, aiding in their eventual rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
• Eligibility for furlough usually requires that the prisoner has served a minimum portion of their sentence and maintained good behavior, though specific criteria may vary by jurisdiction.
• Furlough is granted under specific conditions, which may include reporting to local police stations, restrictions on movement, and the requirement to return to prison at the specified time.

What are the Legal Provisions Relating to Furlough?

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
  • Section 473: Power to suspend or remit sentences.
  • The appropriate Government has the power to suspend or remit sentences, with or without conditions, at any time after a person has been sentenced for an offense.
  • When considering applications for suspension or remission, the Government may seek the opinion of the presiding Judge who convicted or confirmed the conviction, along with reasons and relevant trial records.
  • The Government can cancel a suspension or remission if conditions are not met, leading to potential rearrest of the person to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence.
  • Petitions for suspension or remission (except for fines) for persons over 18 must be made while the person is in jail, either through the officer in charge or with a declaration of imprisonment if made by another person.
  • These provisions apply to all orders restricting liberty or imposing liability, with the "appropriate Government" being either the Central Government for Union matters or the State Government for other cases.
• Prisons Act 1894:
  • Furlough and Parole Rules, made pursuant to Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894.
  • The grant of furlough is regulated primarily by Rule 3 and Rule 4 of prison rules.
  • Rule 3 outlines the eligibility criteria for prisoners to be granted furlough, based on the length of their imprisonment.
  • Rule 4 imposes limitations on the grant of furlough.
  • The language "may be released" in Rule 3 indicates that furlough is not an absolute right of prisoners.
  • Rule 17 explicitly states that these rules do not confer a legal right on prisoners to claim release on furlough.
  • The grant of furlough is a discretionary remedy, subject to the conditions outlined in Rules 3 and 4.
  • The Supreme Court has clarified that furlough is not a legal right of prisoners.

What is Parole?

• It is a system of releasing a prisoner with suspension of the sentence.
  • The release is conditional, usually subject to behavior, and requires periodic reporting to the authorities for a set period of time.
• Parole is not a right, and is given to a prisoner for a specific reason, such as a death in the family or a wedding of a blood relative
• It may be denied to a prisoner even when he makes out a sufficient case, if the competent authority is satisfied that releasing the convict would not be in the interest of society.

Difference Between Parole and Furlough?

Nature of Release:

Parole and furlough are both forms of temporary conditional release from confinement. However, parole is granted for specific purposes, whereas furlough is a periodic release without necessarily requiring a particular reason. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Purpose:

The purpose of parole is to address specific exigencies or reasons, while furlough aims to maintain the prisoner's family and social ties and mitigate the adverse effects of prolonged incarceration. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006; Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Eligibility:

Furlough eligibility is determined by the completion of a minimum stipulated sentence as per Rule 3, whereas parole may be granted based on the merits of the specific cause shown. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Reason Requirement:

For granting parole, reasons must be explicitly stated as per Rule 19. In contrast, furlough does not necessitate the provision of specific reasons. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Discretionary Nature:

Release on furlough is not an absolute right of the prisoner and is subject to conditions outlined in Rules 4(4) and 6. It may be denied in the interest of society. Parole, however, is to be granted only upon sufficient cause being demonstrated. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006)

Sentence Computation:

The period spent on furlough is treated as time served in prison and counts towards the total sentence. Conversely, the period of parole is not counted as remission of sentence. (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar,2006 State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh,2000)

Duration and Frequency:

Parole may extend up to one month, while furlough is limited to a maximum of fourteen days. Parole can be granted multiple times, whereas furlough is subject to limitations. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Granting Authority:

Parole is granted by the Divisional Commissioner, while furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Applicability to Sentence Length:

Parole may be considered in cases of short-term imprisonment, whereas furlough is typically granted for long-term imprisonment. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Legal Characterization:

Parole can be characterized as a form of conditional pardon or suspension of sentence, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Furlough, in contrast, is granted as a good conduct remission. (Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan,2017)

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice KV Viswanathan held that blacklisting results in civil death to a party.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of The Blue Dreamz Advertising v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

What is the Background of The Blue Dreamz Advertising v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation Case?

• The Respondent no. 1 (Kolkata Municipal Corporation) invited bids for the allotment of contract for display of advertisement on Street Hoardings, Bus Passenger shelter and Kiosks within its jurisdiction.
• By an award dated 28^th May 2014 the appellant was notified as the successful bidder.
• A show cause notice was issued asking why the appellant’s allotment should not be terminated as dues along with interest have not been cleared.
• Pursuant to this a notice was published in the English Daily “The Times of India” that the appellant has been blacklisted.
• It was the case of the appellant that the decision to blacklist without recourse to arbitration proceeding is illegal.
• By an order dated 2^nd March 2016, the Corporation debarred the appellant from participating in any tender for five years or till the date of exoneration of the company from the allegation of negligent performance/action and also of nonpayment of huge amount or till the date of payment of entire dues with interest under the direction of any authority/forum/court, whichever is later.
• A writ petition was filed challenging the above order. The matter was further carried out in appeal.
• The High Court held that since the appellant was given a hearing and there were sufficient grounds for debarring the appellant.
• The Appellant was before the Supreme Court against this order.
• The issue for consideration before the Court was whether the order of the Corporation dated ^2nd March 2016 debarring the appellant for five years is valid and justified in law?

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court in this case held that debarment as a remedy should be invoked only in those cases where there is harm or potential harm for public interest.
• It should be done only in those cases where debarment as a penalty alone will protect the public interest and deter the person from repeating his actions which have the tendency to put public interest in jeopardy.
• In case of an ordinary breach of contract under Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) where explanation offered by the person raises a bona fide dispute, blacklisting/debarment as a penalty ought not to be resorted to.

What is Blacklisting?

• Blacklist as per the Encyclopedia of the Laws of England means “ Blacklist is a list of persons or firms against whom its complier would warn the public, or some section of the public; a list of persons unworthy of credit, or with whom it is not advisable to make contracts.”
• A blacklist order results in civil consequences and amounts affecting the business prospects of a person.
• No authority should act in an arbitrary manner to put a person on blacklist and must act in a fair manner.

When is Blacklisting Justified?

• Blacklisting is justified in following situations:
  • When the proprietor is convicted by a Court of Law.
  • If there is a strong consideration that the person is guilty of malpractices such as bribery, corruption, fraud.
  • If the firm employs a government servant dismissed or removed on account of corruption.
  • Where the person refused to commence the work despite repeated orders.
  • There was a failure of the contractor to adhere to the time schedule of 25 days and there was no suitable reply to the show cause notice. The Court held that the order blacklisting was justified and there was no failure of natural justice.
    • This was held in the case of B.S. Construction Company v. Commissioner of MCD (2008).
  • When a contractor was blacklisted on the ground that he sub-let the work without seeking approval the Court held that the order of blacklisting was not justified.
    • It was held that the Government misinterpreted the clauses of the contract, and the order of blacklisting was bad in law.
    • This was held in the case of PT Samber Mitra Jaya v. NHAI (2003).

What are the Major Case Laws on Blacklisting?

• Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (1975):
  • Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains.
  • The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction.
• Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006):
  • The Court held that blacklisting would have a disastrous effect on a tenderer.
  • When a tenderer is declared to be a defaulter, he may not get any contract at all and it may have to wind up its business.
  • When a demand is made and the person concerned raises a bona fide dispute in this regard so long as the dispute is not resolved he may not be declared as a defaulter.
• Kulja Industries Ltd v. Chief General Manager Western Telecom Project BSNL & Ors. (2014):
  • A 2- judge bench in this case held that the power to blacklist a contractor is inherent and there is no need of conferment of such power by the statute.
  • Also, the Court held that the decision to blacklist a contractor has a serious consequence and can be scrutinized by the High Court.
  • Further, the decision has to be examined on the principles of natural justice and doctrine of proportionality.
  • The Supreme Court in this case relied on guidelines prescribed by the US Federal Government for blacklisting (debarment under US law). Supreme Court also relied on the guidelines for factors that may influence debarring official’s decision.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

The Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju introduced the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 that is bill no. 109 of 2024 in Lok Sabha during the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament.

What is Waqf and Waqf Property?

• Definition of Waqf:
  • Section 3(r) of Waqf (earlier Wakf) Act, 1995 defines waqf as: the permanent dedication by any person, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and include

(i) a waqf by user but such waqf shall not cease to be a waqf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser;

(ii) a Shamlat Patti, Shamlat Deh, Jumla Malkkan or by any other name entered in a revenue record;

(iii) “grants”, including mashrat-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable; and

(iv) a waqf-alal-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, provided when the line of succession fails, the income of the waqf shall be spent for education, development, welfare and such other purposes as recognised by Muslim law, and “waqif” means any person making such dedication.

• Waqf Property:
  • A Waqf is personal property given by Muslims for religious, charitable, or private purposes.
  • Ownership of Waqf property is implied to be with God.
  • A Waqf can be formed through a deed, instrument, orally, or by long-term use for religious/charitable purposes.
  • Once declared as Waqf, a property's character changes permanently, it becomes non-transferable and is detained perpetually.

What is the Background of Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024?

• The Wakf Act was first passed by Parliament in 1954.
• It was later repealed, and a new Wakf Act was passed in 1995, which gave more powers to Waqf Boards.
• In 2013, the Act was further amended to grant the Waqf Board extensive powers to designate property as ‘Waqf Property’.
  • It substituted the word ‘Wakf’ for the word ‘Waqf’.
• To make further amendments in the existing Waqf Act, 1995 (earlier Wakf Act, 1995) the Waqf Amendment Bill has been introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju on 8^th August 2024.
• It faced strong criticism from opposition parties who called it "unconstitutional", "anti-minority", and "divisive".
• The government has referred the bill to a Joint Committee of Parliament for further scrutiny.

What is the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024?

• Title and Scope:
  • The bill seeks to amend the Waqf Act, 1995 (earlier Wakf Act, 1995).
  • It aims to rename the Act as the "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995".
  • The bill proposes comprehensive amendments to improve administration and management of waqf properties.
• Key Definitions:
  • Clause 3 clarifies definition of "waqf" as waqf by any person practicing Islam for at least five years and having ownership of property.
  • It adds definitions for "Aghakhani waqf", "Bohra waqf", "Collector", "Government Organisation", "Government property" etc.
• Governance:
  • It shifts power from Waqf Boards/Tribunals to state governments.
  • Clause 11: It allows non-Muslim CEOs and members on state Waqf Boards.
  • Proviso Clause 22: Central Government may, by order, direct the audit of any waqf at any time by an auditor appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, or by any officer designated by the Central Government for that purpose.
• Registration and Survey:
  • It mandates creation of waqf only through execution of a waqf deed.
  • It transfers survey functions from Survey Commissioner to Collector.
  • It provides for uploading list of auqaf on central portal/database.
  • It streamlines registration process through central portal/database.
  • It mandates 90-day public notice before mutation of land records as waqf property.
• Composition of Boards:
  • It provides for broad-based composition of Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.
  • It ensures representation of Muslim women and non-Muslims.
  • It allows for separate Boards for Bohras and Aghakhanis.
  • It mandates representation from Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Agakhani and other backward Muslim communities.
• Powers and Functions:
  • It omits Section 40 on the Board's power to decide if property is waqf property.
  • It reduces the annual contribution payable to the Board from 7% to 5%.
  • It mandates filing of waqf accounts on central portal.
  • It provides for publishing Board proceedings/orders.
• Tribunals and Appeals:
  • It reforms the tribunal structure to have two members.
  • It allows appeals against Tribunal orders to the High Court within 90 days.
  • It removes finality of Tribunal decisions in various sections.
• Other Key Changes:
  • It ensures waqf-alal-aulad does not deny inheritance rights to women.
  • It omits provisions related to "waqf by user".
  • It provides for removal of mutawalli if member of unlawful association.
  • It makes the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable by omitting Section 107.

What are Landmark Cases Related to State Interference in Matters of Religion?

• Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962):
  • The Supreme Court of India, in its judgments, has established that while matters of religion are generally beyond State interference, this freedom is not absolute.
  • The State can regulate or restrict religious practices if they conflict with public order, morality, or health.
  • This means that religious freedoms are protected, but they can be curtailed if they threaten societal well-being, public peace, or ethical standards.
• Bramchari Sidheswar Bhai & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (1995):
  • The Supreme Court of India ruled the state must not interfere with religious matters, particularly those of religious denominations, as long as their practices do not conflict with public order, morality, or health.
  • The court recognized the Ramakrishna Mission as a religious denomination within Hinduism, granting it the autonomy to manage its religious and educational institutions.