States Urge for Reforms in Waqf Property Governance
New Delhi |
As the Supreme Court hears a batch of petitions today challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, six BJP-ruled states have filed intervention pleas in support of the amended law, citing its necessity for better governance and transparency in the management of Waqf properties.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, is set to hear the matter at 2 PM.
The states backing the law include Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam. Each has submitted separate applications highlighting the administrative and legal ramifications that could arise if the amended Act is invalidated or significantly altered.
What the States Are Arguing:
-
Haryana (Lead Intervener):
Emphasized the need for unified Waqf management, pointing out issues such as incomplete property surveys, irregular accounting, pending litigation in Waqf tribunals, and lack of transparency in audits by Mutawallis (custodians). The state claims the new law is a transformational reform ensuring accountability. -
Rajasthan:
Raised concerns about historical instances where private or state land was declared as Waqf property without due process, leading to legal complications and public disputes. -
Maharashtra:
Advocated the need to present parliamentary debates, legal consultations, and empirical data to help the Court assess the practical and legal issues in current Waqf administration. -
Madhya Pradesh:
Argued that the amendment brings long-awaited reforms in the management and regulation of religious endowments. -
Assam:
Cited Section 3E of the amended law, which bars any declaration of land in Scheduled or Tribal Areas (under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules) as Waqf property—an important clause for safeguarding indigenous land rights. -
Chhattisgarh:
Highlighted the need to simplify administrative procedures and improve coordination between Waqf Boards and local authorities for better implementation.
At the heart of the legal challenge lies a broader national debate on property rights, religious endowments, and administrative accountability. The support from six states signals a political and policy push for standardizing how religious assets, especially Waqf properties, are surveyed, audited, and litigated.
With issues ranging from land disputes to tribal rights, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for religious trust governance in India, and shape future amendments across endowment-related laws.
