The recently passed Waqf Amendment Bill continues to stir unrest and sharp responses across the socio-religious and political spectrum of India, with Jammu & Kashmir emerging as a focal point of the resistance. In a significant development, the Grand Mufti of J&K has announced plans to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment, citing concerns over religious autonomy and administrative overreach. Adding to the momentum, the Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), an influential religious body in Kashmir, has called for a decisive meeting on April 7, aimed at building a unified response to what they call a “serious threat to Muslim institutions.”
This growing opposition underscores the widening impact of the Waqf Amendment, not just as a piece of legislation, but as a potential turning point in how religious properties are administered in India—particularly in sensitive regions like Kashmir.
Grand Mufti’s Legal Stand: Protecting Religious Autonomy
Grand Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, a leading religious authority in Jammu & Kashmir, expressed grave concern about the implications of the Waqf Amendment Bill for religious institutions and communities in the Union Territory. In his statement, he emphasized that the amendment threatens the traditional autonomy of Waqf boards and endowment management—a domain that has historically been under religious leadership and local oversight.
According to the Grand Mufti, the Waqf Amendment violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion under Article 25 and the rights of religious denominations under Article 26. The plan to move the Supreme Court against the Waqf Amendment represents a strategic legal push to challenge the centralization of Waqf property management.
“The recent changes impose a structure that sidelines local scholars and religious leaders who have, for decades, managed Waqf assets in accordance with Islamic jurisprudence and community needs,” the Grand Mufti noted.
MMU’s April 7 Meeting: A Unified Voice from the Valley
The Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU), a conglomerate of various Islamic organizations and schools of thought in Kashmir, has scheduled a critical meeting on April 7 in Srinagar. The gathering will bring together prominent clerics, legal experts, social activists, and community representatives to deliberate on the future course of action against the Waqf Amendment.
With the Grand Mufti’s legal challenge as a backdrop, the MMU aims to create a collective strategy to counter the amendment, both legally and through public mobilization. According to MMU sources, the April 7 agenda includes:
- Evaluating the legal implications of the Waqf Amendment
- Coordinating with civil society and legal experts
- Mobilizing support from other states facing similar concerns
- Issuing a joint declaration regarding future action
The MMU’s involvement adds weight to the legal and moral argument against the amendment, especially within the unique socio-political fabric of Kashmir.
Understanding the Waqf Amendment: Centralization and Controversy
The Waqf Amendment Bill, passed by the Parliament after intense debate, aims to restructure the management and supervision of Waqf properties across India. Among other provisions, it grants the Central Waqf Council enhanced oversight powers, potentially overriding state-level Waqf boards and local management.
While the government has positioned the Waqf Amendment as a reform to increase transparency, ensure uniformity, and curb corruption, critics argue that it undermines the autonomy of religious bodies and is tantamount to state overreach into religious affairs.
In Jammu & Kashmir, this concern is magnified due to the region’s unique religious and political sensitivities, especially after the abrogation of Article 370. The Grand Mufti and the MMU argue that the Waqf Amendment threatens the localized, faith-led administration of religious trusts, a system long rooted in community consensus and jurisprudential traditions.
Why Kashmir Reacted Sharply to the Waqf Amendment
Kashmir’s response to the Waqf Amendment Bill has been more intense than in other regions for several reasons:
- Religious Sentiment: The Waqf system in Kashmir holds spiritual, historical, and cultural significance. Many mosques, shrines, and schools are run through these endowments, forming the backbone of Islamic life in the region.
- Political Distrust: Since the dilution of J&K’s special status in 2019, there’s been heightened skepticism toward central laws being applied in the region without local consultation.
- Historical Autonomy: For decades, J&K Waqf Board operated with significant independence, aligning management with local traditions and Islamic scholars.
The Grand Mufti’s opposition to the Waqf Amendment resonates widely in the valley, with community leaders and even some political voices viewing the law as a further erosion of institutional autonomy.
Broader Implications: Legal and National Debate Intensifies
The challenge to the Waqf Amendment in the Supreme Court is expected to spark broader legal debates around religious freedom, federalism, and minority rights. Should the Supreme Court entertain the petition, it could re-examine the constitutionality of the amendment and its alignment with:
- Article 25 & 26 (Freedom of Religion)
- Article 29 & 30 (Rights of Minorities to manage institutions)
- Doctrine of essential religious practices
Moreover, this legal push may encourage other religious groups and Waqf boards across India to join the fight or file supporting petitions, potentially turning the matter into a landmark judicial review on religious property rights in modern India.
Voices of Support and Resistance Across India
While the Grand Mufti and MMU lead the charge in Kashmir, reactions to the Waqf Amendment across India have been mixed:
- In states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Uttar Pradesh, some Waqf Boards have expressed concern about diminished autonomy.
- Certain minority organizations and legal experts argue that centralization may conflict with India’s secular character.
- On the other hand, some reformists and government supporters claim the amendment promotes accountability, especially against the backdrop of alleged corruption in Waqf property dealings.
Regardless of the differing opinions, the Grand Mufti’s move has reinvigorated the national conversation on who should control religious endowments—and why.
Waqf Properties in Kashmir: What’s at Stake?
In Kashmir, Waqf properties include thousands of kanals of land, major shrines, mosques, and madrasas, including historic institutions like the Hazratbal Shrine, Jamia Masjid, and Charar-e-Sharif. These are not just religious sites, but social and educational hubs that shape the spiritual life of the valley.
The concern is not just administrative. Critics argue that imposing central control over such sacred spaces could disconnect them from their local religious ethos. The Grand Mufti’s legal challenge seeks to protect this link between community and place of worship.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the petition, it could lead to a stay or partial suspension of the Waqf Amendment as it applies to Kashmir—or even a broader constitutional interpretation with implications for all of India.
Conclusion: An Amendment, A Movement, and a Moment of Reckoning
The announcement that the Grand Mufti of J&K will challenge the Waqf Amendment in the Supreme Court marks a pivotal moment in the unfolding story of religious rights and federal governance in India. With the MMU’s April 7 meeting in Kashmir acting as a catalyst, the pushback against the amendment is growing both in intensity and scale.
The central issue is not just administrative control over properties—but a battle over identity, autonomy, and constitutional principles. Whether the law remains, is repealed, or reshaped by judicial scrutiny, it is clear that the Waqf Amendment Bill has ignited a broader debate that could redefine the relationship between the Indian state and its religious institutions.
As legal filings are prepared and strategies discussed behind closed doors in Srinagar, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court, which may soon be called upon to answer a profound question: Who truly has the right to manage the sacred?
For More News Update –dailynewfeeds
