Source: The Indian Express

Introduction 

The Union Cabinet has approved all 14 amendments to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 as proposed by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). These amendments modify several contentious provisions of the original bill introduced in August 2023, which sought to amend the Waqf Act of 1995. The bill addresses critical aspects of waqf property management, registration, and dispute resolution in India. 

What Changes Have Been Made to the Property Registration Timeline? 

• The original 2024 Bill mandated that every waqf and property dedicated to waqf must be registered on a central portal and database within six months of the law's commencement.  
• This rigid timeline posed significant challenges for waqf boards and property managers across the country, particularly for historical properties with complex documentation. 
• The JPC accepted an amendment proposed by JD(U) MP Dileshwar Kamait that introduces flexibility in this timeline. Under the amended provision, the Waqf Tribunal is empowered to extend the six-month deadline in certain cases where the mutawalli (property manager) can demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the delay in registration. 
• This amendment acknowledges the practical difficulties in compiling and verifying documentation for waqf properties, especially those established decades or centuries ago. 
• However, the amendment leaves considerable discretion to the Waqf Tribunal, as it does not specify: 
  • What constitutes "sufficient cause" for delay 
  • The maximum permissible extension period 
  • The procedural requirements for seeking such extensions 
• A related amendment proposed by BJP MP Dr. Radha Mohan Das Agarwal addresses the legal consequences of non-registration. 
• The original bill stipulated that six months after the law's commencement, waqfs not registered on the central portal would forfeit their right to initiate legal proceedings concerning their properties. 
• The amendment modifies this harsh consequence by allowing courts to permit legal filings from unregistered waqfs, provided they submit an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-registration. This creates a safety valve for waqf properties facing immediate legal threats but unable to complete registration within the prescribed period. 

How Does the Bill Modify the Dispute Resolution Mechanism? 

• One of the most controversial aspects of the original 2024 Bill was the enhanced role given to District Collectors in determining whether properties claimed as waqf were actually government properties.  
• The Bill stated that "any government property identified or declared as waqf property, before or after the commencement of the Act, shall not be deemed to be a waqf property," with this determination to be made by the Collector rather than the Waqf Tribunal. 
• Critics argued this created a conflict of interest, as a government official would effectively be judging disputes between the government and waqf boards. 
• Additionally, the original Bill established that until a final decision was made, disputed properties would be presumptively treated as government property, not waqf property. 
• The JPC accepted four amendments proposed by Telugu Desam MP Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu that significantly modify this process: 
  • The District Collector is replaced by a more senior "designated officer" of the state government in the dispute resolution process 
  • This designated officer, rather than the District Collector, will be responsible for making necessary changes to revenue records if a property is deemed to be government property 
  • The amendment attempts to address concerns about impartiality by elevating the decision-making authority to a higher administrative level 
• However, the fundamental issue of a government official adjudicating disputes involving government claims remains unresolved 
• These amendments represent a partial concession to critics without fundamentally altering the government's increased role in waqf property determinations. The practical impact will depend on how states designate these senior officers and what procedural safeguards accompany their decision-making process. 

What Changes Have Been Made to Waqf Board Composition? 

• The original 2024 Bill proposed a significant change to the composition of state-level waqf boards by allowing: 
  • A non-Muslim Chief Executive Officer 
  • At least two non-Muslim members to be appointed by the state government 
• This represented a departure from the traditional composition of waqf boards, which have historically been comprised of Muslim members given the religious nature of waqf institutions in Islamic law. 
• The JPC accepted BJP MP Abhijit Gangopadhyay's amendment specifying that the state government official appointed to the Waqf Board must be a Joint Secretary-level officer "dealing with Waqf matters." This amendment aims to ensure that government representatives on the board have relevant expertise and administrative authority. 
• Additionally, the JPC accepted an amendment from BJP Rajya Sabha MP Gulam Ali making it mandatory to have a member in the Waqf Tribunal with knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence. This addresses concerns that the Tribunal might lack the specialized knowledge needed to adjudicate matters rooted in Islamic legal traditions. 
• The amended bill retains the provision for non-Muslim representation on waqf boards but attempts to balance this with a requirement for Islamic legal expertise on the Tribunal. This represents a compromise between: 
  • The government's stated goal of bringing greater transparency and accountability to waqf administration 
  • Concerns from Muslim organizations about preserving the religious character of waqf institutions 

What Are the Implications for Government-Waqf Property Disputes? 

• Burden of Proof: While the amendments modify the dispute resolution process, they retain the fundamental shift in the burden of proof. Under the amended bill, properties claimed by both the government and waqf boards are presumptively treated as government property until a final determination is made. 
• Timeline for Resolution: The bill does not establish clear timelines for how quickly the "designated officer" must resolve property disputes. This creates potential uncertainty for waqf properties caught in prolonged administrative processes. 
• Appeals Process: The amended bill leaves somewhat unclear the precise mechanism for appealing decisions made by the designated officer. While the Waqf Tribunal retains certain powers, its relationship with the designated officer's determinations remains subject to interpretation. 
• Revenue Record Modifications: The designated officer's authority to modify revenue records based on their determinations grants significant power over the practical status of disputed properties. Even if subsequent legal challenges are successful, interim changes to revenue records could create complex administrative challenges. 
• Historical Claims: The bill's provisions regarding properties "identified or declared as waqf property, before or after the commencement of the Act" potentially impact long-established waqf properties with historical documentation predating contemporary revenue records. 

Conclusion 

The amendments to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 represent partial concessions to criticisms raised against the original bill without fundamentally altering its core approach. While introducing greater flexibility in timelines and replacing District Collectors with more senior officers, the amended bill maintains significant government oversight of waqf properties. The bill's ultimate impact will depend on its implementation, the guidelines developed, and how the various authorities exercise their discretionary powers.