'How Will Govt Decide Who Is A 'Practising Muslim'?'

'We are not all Abduls, you know. Our community has any number of retired civil and defence officers, doctors, engineers, lawyers.'

Last month, the Supreme Court of India stayed some of the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, passed by Parliament in April amending the original Waqf Act of 1995.

Akramul Jabbar Khan, a retired Indian Revenue Service officer and co-director of the watchdog NGO Waqf Liaison Forum, has been monitoring the working of Waqf Boards since his retirement more than a decade ago. He would despair at the way these boards neglected precious land donated over the centuries for the good of the community.

However, the government's Waqf (Amendment) Act has left Khan pessimistic about whether any good can now come out for Muslims from Waqf lands.

Jyoti Punwani spoke to him about his views on the interim Supreme Court order.

The concluding segment of a two-part interview:

• Part 1 of the Interview: 'Irreparable Harm If Govt Takes Over Waqf Properties'

The court has also not stayed the removal of the exemption from the law of limitation, given by the 1995 Waqf Act to Waqf properties. This enabled a Waqf Board to initiate legal proceedings to recover encroached Waqf land at any time.
Why were the petitioners against this removal?

Waqf land cannot be compared to any other land. Pious people have donated lands for the welfare of the poor. These cannot be bought and sold. It is the Waqf Boards' duty to get these lands back from encroachers, however long that might take.

This is the same Supreme Court which upheld the principle: 'Once a waqf, always a waqf' in 1976 in the Labbai case. Yet, now it is allowing it to be treated as any private land.

What's worse, a similar section -- exemption from the law of limitation -- that exists in the Hindu Endowment Act remains untouched. As a government how can you create this differentiation?

The court has stayed the rule saying that only someone who can prove that they have been practising Islam for at least five years can dedicate a property as Waqf. The stay is till the government frames rules to determine this.
That must come as a relief?

How will a government decide who is a 'practising Muslim'?

Here, the court has quoted Islamic provisions to say that only Muslims can create a Waqf. But these provisions were made at a time when it was not envisaged that a non-Muslim would donate land as Waqf.

How come the secular principle doesn't apply here?

What happens now to lands donated to Muslims by Shivaji Maharaj's grandfather and descendants, and by Shahuji Maharaj, ruler of Kolhapur?

The court has stayed the power of the collector to inquire whether a Waqf property is government property.
Surely that's a big victory?

That's the only merciful outcome of this order. The court has said that judicial oversight will have to be necessary for such decisions.

Was the original Waqf Act 1995 deficient in its aim of providing succour to poor Muslims through Waqf properties?

On the contrary.

The government has repeatedly claimed that it amended the Act so that poor Muslims and women could benefit from Waqf properties. But had the government been honest, there were enough clauses in the original Waqf Act through the implementation of which they could have ensured benefits far and wide.

Consider these provisions:

• The Act makes it mandatory for annual Waqf Board reports to be tabled in the assembly. In Maharashtra at least, this has never been done.
• The Act provides for a regular survey of Waqf lands to be done. That provision remained unused. The government could have seen to its implementation. Had such surveys been carried out, the ridiculous charge of the 'Almighty Waqf Board' would have fallen flat on its face.
• The Act provided for penalties for defaulting mutawalis (caretakers of Waqf properties). You've never levied such penalties.

Instead, Waqf lands have been treated as khichdi served in a thali to which everyone helps themselves, and all governments -- state and central -- have refused to act against the corrupt and inefficient mutawalis.

The Central Waqf Council has been headless for four years. Why wasn't someone appointed? We are not all Abduls, you know. Our community has any number of retired civil and defence officers, doctors, engineers, lawyers. Why couldn't you find ways to appoint someone qualified?

So do you feel let down by the court?

When a majority of amendments remain to be considered, such a long order, mostly justifying the government's actions, could have waited.

But sorry to say, I've seen better orders.

We look upon the Supreme Court with a lot of respect.

Milords should have thought about the impact this new bill would have on society. It strengthens the false narrative of the government, which is being propagated by WhatsApp University, that Waqf Boards have taken over government lands and private lands of Hindus.

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff