New Delhi: JPC Chairman Jagdambika Pal has announced that the panel is going to present its report on the Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 during the upcoming Budget session. However, the bill has faced strong opposition from Muslim groups, who have criticized it as a mere eyewash, in their resent submissions to the JPC. They warn that its passage could reverse key reforms, jeopardize Waqf properties, and infringe upon constitutional provisions as well as Supreme Court rulings.
The Union Government is likely to introduce the contentious Waqf Amendment Bill 2024 during the upcoming Budget session, scheduled from January 31 to April 4. Talking to ANI, JPC Chairman Jagdambika Pal stated that the committee is going to present its report during the upcoming Budget session. Pal highlighted that the JPC has held 34 meetings in Delhi and engaged with over 204 delegations and stakeholders, aiming to reach a consensus. Recently, Pal and other members of the committee also visited Patna as part of their ongoing consultations with various parties and organizations. Recently, the JPC team visited Patna in Bihar and Kolkata and is now visiting Lucknow, UPÂ to meet different stakeholders to know their views on the bill. The 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was formed on August 9, 2024, to review the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, following strong objections from opposition parties over its introduction by the Union govt. The JPC is now holding regular meetings across various states to engage with stakeholders, gather their views, and work toward building a consensus on the contentious bill.
Noted Indian Muslim groups, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat-Ulema-I-Hind, All India Sunni Jamiyatul Ulama, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, and former MP Mohammad Adeeb led Indian Muslims for Civil Rights have submitted their views on the proposed Bill to the JPC. Later, JPC members sent various questions and queries to these groups, who have strongly rejected the bill in their written replies. In their responses to the JPC, most of the Muslim organizations called for the immediate rollback of the controversial Bill, criticizing it for failing to address key issues and potentially worsening the crisis in Waqf property management.
In this regard, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) has informed the media that it recently submitted detailed supplementary replies to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) regarding the Waqf Bill, following a meeting with the committee in November 2024. JIH Vice President Malik Moatashim Khan stated that the JPC members had raised around 65 questions, focusing on the definition, administration, and legal framework of Waqf properties. Â According to him, the queries included concerns about the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf management, the impact of abolishing “Waqf by User,” and potential conflicts with constitutional and federal laws.
Malik Moatashim Khan expressed concerns that the proposed amendments could undermine the sanctity of Waqf properties, especially longstanding assets without formal documentation, such as mosques and graveyards. He emphasized the need to safeguard these properties and called for the rejection of contentious amendments, urging the focus to shift to better implementation of existing Waqf laws. JIH remains committed to addressing further queries and ensuring the welfare of Waqf assets for the community, he added.
Many other Muslim groups also reported receiving similar questions and queries and even some bizarre questions from JPC members. They too provided extensive responses, offering well-reasoned arguments and citing legal frameworks to support their positions.
For example, a  JPC members asked Muslim bodies whether they believed the Ministry distrusted the WAMSI portal data, the Muslim group replied that the new bill allowed collectors to reject large portions of WAMSI data without approval, suggesting even the central government and the National Informatics Centre (NIC) may not trust the data in the future. They argued that WAMSI data should be verified through Waqf registers and deeds in court. They also pointed out that the bill gives collectors the power to reject WAMSI data, suggesting a lack of trust in the system.
When the JPC raised concerns about the proposed Bill allowing adverse possession of Waqf properties after 12 years and potentially declassifying centuries-old “Waqf by User” properties, Muslim groups strongly opposed the provisions. Citing the Specific Relief Act, Limitation Act, and other laws on adverse possession, they argued that the 12-year rule for ‘Waqf by User’ properties is unacceptable. They emphasized that unauthorized possession of religious properties, especially those with significant cultural and emotional value, should never be legalized. Such provisions, they contended, would unjustly transfer Waqf properties—including those managed by government departments—to hostile possessors. “Religious sites and properties with emotional and customary value cannot be stripped of their status so easily,” they stated.
In response to question about the difference between a socio-religious organization and a statutory body, Muslim groups clarified that the Waqf Board functions as both. It is a statutory body established by law and governed by regulations, while also serving as a socio-religious organization that manages the religious and moral aspects of Waqfs.
On the issue of whether Waqf properties serve only Muslims or all people, the Muslim groups  clarified that while Waqf properties are dedicated to Allah, the benefits, including education, healthcare, and welfare services, extend to all, regardless of religion. They also emphasized that commercial developments on Waqf land should adhere to charitable objectives.
In their submissions, the groups acknowledged the need for reform in Waqf management, particularly regarding encroachments. However, they criticized the bill for failing to address key implementation issues at both the state and central levels. They also defended the Waqf Act of 1995 and urged the JPC to reconsider the bill.
When asked about the current Waqf Boards’ ability to protect their interests, the Muslim groups blamed state government neglect, including political interference in appointments, staff shortages, and delays in fund disbursement.
Regarding “Waqf by user” properties, the groups opposed the proposed amendment that would require new registration through a central government portal. They explained that these properties, recognized since the Waqf Act of 1954, are already registered under state Waqf boards. They warned that the new registration process could cause chaos and criticized the bill for prioritizing revenue records over established legal documents like gazettes and Waqf board registers.
In response to a question about whether individuals from non-Muslim communities (e.g., Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindus) can dedicate property as Waqf, the Muslim bodies confirmed that anyone, regardless of religion, can create a Waqf. They noted that the Waqf Act of 1995 and its 2013 amendment do not prevent non-Muslims from dedicating property. However, they criticized the proposed Waqf Bill 2024, which imposes a five-year religious practice requirement for Muslims to create Waqf. They argued that this condition is contradictory, as non-Muslims are allowed to manage Waqf but are excluded from dedicating property to it.
On the question of whether “Waqf by user” is an un-Islamic concept, the Muslim groups affirmed that it is neither illegitimate nor un-Islamic, as it has been practiced for generations in accordance with Islamic law.
Regarding the benefits of hospitals, shops, and other establishments on Waqf properties, the Muslim groups clarified that the benefits are intended for all of humanity, not just Muslims. They emphasized that while anyone can donate land to Waqf, it must comply with Muslim laws, with the intention to serve the broader community, including both Muslims and non-Muslims.
They also discussed the historical and religious significance of Waqf, tracing its origins to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who encouraged the dedication of property for charity that could neither be sold nor inherited.
The Muslim groups criticized the Ministry for reducing the term of the Central Waqf Council (CWC) and for failing to appoint a Secretary for over 18 months, halting critical schemes and leaving allocated funds unspent. They argued this reflected the lack of genuine intent behind the Waqf Bill.
On the federalism issue, the Muslim groups warned that the Bill could spark conflicts between the Centre and states over the management of Waqf properties, particularly as Waqf pertains to land under the State List and should be managed under the Concurrent List.
The groups also addressed concerns over the treatment of Waqf by user properties, explaining that such properties are historically recognized and should not be derecognized without proper legal processes. They warned that removing this category would lead to chaos and injustice, as these properties have been dedicated for religious and charitable purposes for generations.
Addressing issues related to the rights of recent converts to Islam, the Muslim groups criticized the Bill’s restriction, which would prevent converts from dedicating property to the Waqf Board while allowing similar donations to other religions. They argued that this constitutes religious discrimination, violating constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 15.
Regarding the management of religious properties dedicated by other faiths, the Muslim groups pointed out that several states have specific laws for managing the endowments of Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and Jains, and these laws establish separate boards and councils for each faith.
The Muslim groups criticized the proposed two-member tribunal system in the Bill, arguing it would dilute the tribunal’s powers and compromise natural justice. They recommended maintaining the three-member structure to protect the rights of the Waqf community and ensure fair adjudication of disputes.
Finally, the groups raised concerns about the incomplete survey of Waqf properties mandated by the 2013 amendment, noting that the data from the Waqf Asset Management System (WAMSI) is still unverified. They emphasized that a thorough and accurate survey is crucial before any further amendments are made to the Waqf Act.