In a dramatic and politically charged atmosphere, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha after a fiery 12-hour debate that culminated in 128 votes in favor and 95 against. The session saw one of the most scathing criticisms from Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, who called the bill a “brazen assault on the Constitution”, accusing the government of systematically eroding minority rights.
The Waqf Amendment Bill, brought forward by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, has triggered widespread controversy not only inside Parliament but also across civil society, legal circles, and community organizations. While the ruling party claims the bill promotes transparency and accountability in managing waqf properties, opposition voices strongly argue it empowers the Centre to trample upon federalism and religious autonomy.
This landmark moment—marked by fierce political rhetoric, constitutional arguments, and community apprehension—has ignited a nationwide discourse on what the amendment to the Waqf Act truly represents for Indian democracy.
What the Waqf (Amendment) Bill Proposes
The Waqf Amendment Bill seeks to alter several clauses in the original Waqf Act of 1995, a legislation that governs religious endowments made for charitable and religious purposes in the Muslim community. The proposed amendments focus on the following:
- Empowering the Central Government to issue policy directions to state waqf boards.
- Mandating geotagging and digital record-keeping of all waqf properties.
- Introducing a mechanism for central oversight on leasing or transferring waqf land.
- Allowing central officers to conduct surveys and inspections of waqf properties.
While the government argues this will prevent the misuse and illegal occupation of waqf land, critics fear that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill effectively reduces community autonomy and brings religious institutions under direct central control.
Sonia Gandhi’s Charge: An Affront to Constitutional Principles
In a powerful intervention during the Rajya Sabha debate, Sonia Gandhi condemned the Waqf Bill, calling it not only poorly conceived but also dangerous to India’s secular ethos. She emphasized that the bill violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
Her words were clear and direct:
“The Waqf Amendment Bill is a brazen assault on the very foundation of our Constitution. It seeks to centralize power, curtail the rights of religious minorities, and render waqf boards powerless under bureaucratic control.”
She also pointed out that the bill was pushed through without wide consultation with community leaders, legal experts, or affected stakeholders. According to her, the bill sets a precedent for interference not just in Muslim institutions, but potentially all religious trusts.
This remark electrified the opposition benches and set the tone for a day of heated argument, walkouts, and passionate defenses of both the bill and the constitutional framework it allegedly undermines.
A Parliament Divided: Highlights from the 12-Hour Debate
The Waqf Amendment Bill’s passage in Rajya Sabha was anything but smooth. Over 12 hours of debate saw the House deeply divided. On one hand, the ruling party and its allies claimed that the bill was a much-needed reform to address decades of corruption and inefficiency in waqf property management.
They cited instances of illegal encroachment, unauthorized leases, and even instances where waqf land was allegedly sold off without board approval. The Waqf Amendment Bill, they claimed, was the only way to ensure accountability and modernization of the waqf system.
On the other side, leaders from Congress, DMK, Trinamool Congress, RJD, and AIMIM blasted the bill as unconstitutional and anti-minority. They argued that the amendment to the Waqf Act:
- Grants disproportionate powers to the Centre.
- Dilutes the role of elected waqf board members.
- Opens the door for arbitrary land seizures.
- Undermines federalism and religious freedom.
Some even questioned the timing of the bill and its potential use for political messaging ahead of state and general elections. The final vote—128 Ayes, 95 Noes, and 0 abstentions—exposed both the strength of the ruling coalition and the determined resistance of the opposition.
Constitutional Concerns: A Federalism Flashpoint
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill is now at the center of a larger constitutional debate. Opposition leaders, legal scholars, and community voices have raised concerns about the erosion of the federal structure enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
One of the most contested provisions in the bill allows the Central Government to issue binding directives to State Waqf Boards. Critics argue this amounts to direct interference in what should be state-level matters, especially since land and religious institutions fall under the State List in the Seventh Schedule.
Moreover, by giving central officers authority to conduct property inspections, the bill bypasses local accountability and opens the door for bureaucratic overreach. Legal experts point out that these provisions might violate the spirit of Articles 25, 26, and 30, which protect religious freedoms and the rights of minorities to manage their own institutions.
Fear Among Minority Communities
The Waqf Amendment Bill’s passage has deeply unsettled many in the Muslim community, with waqf boards and clerics across India expressing concern. These properties, often centuries old, form the backbone of local Muslim welfare—supporting mosques, madrasas, orphanages, and healthcare centers.
Now, with the government’s increased control, there is a widespread fear that:
- Waqf lands could be acquired or leased out under the pretense of reform.
- Local waqf boards could lose decision-making power to central appointees.
- Minority voices in waqf management will be reduced to symbolic representation.
Several community leaders have questioned whether this is a move toward “legalized dispossession.” Others have warned that this could set a precedent for similar interventions in other religious or charitable endowments, including those belonging to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, and Jains.
Civil Society, Legal Experts, and the Road Ahead
Legal and civil society organizations have begun mobilizing against the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, with plans for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) already underway. Organizations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and legal advocacy groups are preparing challenges based on:
- Violation of fundamental rights.
- Bypass of parliamentary procedure and consultation.
- Excessive delegation of powers to the executive.
If taken up, the Supreme Court’s response to this bill could shape the future of religious governance in India. Much like past landmark judgments on triple talaq, temple management, and religious conversions, the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Bill could become a defining legal battle over the scope of state power and the sanctity of constitutional protections.
Political Ramifications and Public Response
The Waqf Bill debate has already become a rallying point for opposition parties, many of whom have vowed to make this an electoral issue. With several crucial state elections on the horizon, including in states with sizable Muslim populations, the bill’s impact could be felt on the campaign trail.
Street protests, press conferences, and public petitions have begun in cities like Delhi, Hyderabad, Lucknow, and Kolkata. The opposition has also promised to challenge the bill in court and launch a nationwide awareness campaign.
Public sentiment remains divided—while some welcome the reforms as long overdue, others view them as an extension of the central government’s broader project of centralized control and majoritarian governance.
Conclusion: A Bill That Will Resonate for Years
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill’s passage in Rajya Sabha, in the face of vehement opposition and a blistering critique by Sonia Gandhi, marks more than just a legislative victory for the government. It represents a crucial moment in India’s democratic journey, one where the battle lines between governance, religion, rights, and representation have been sharply drawn.
Whether this bill becomes a tool for greater transparency or a symbol of overreach will depend not just on legal interpretations, but on how it is implemented, challenged, and understood by the Indian people.
As debates rage on in courts, streets, and political stages, the amendment to the Waqf Act will remain a test of India’s constitutional values—and the resilience of its pluralism.
For News Update –dailynewfeeds
