Centre Clarifies No Discrimination in Waqf Boards, Says Comparison with Hindu Endowments is Unfair
NEW DELHI: The Indian government has clarified that the distinction between Muslim waqf boards and Hindu religious endowment boards is not a matter of discrimination, as the Supreme Court was asked to consider. In a recent hearing, the Centre emphasized that the composition of these bodies cannot be compared, as they are governed by different legal frameworks and historical contexts.
Central Government’s Stance on Waqf Council Composition
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, presented documents to highlight that the Central Waqf Council and its affiliated boards are designed to maintain a minority character. He argued that an overwhelming majority of members will always be Muslim, ensuring the bodies retain their identity as Muslim-centric institutions.
Mehta also noted that the government has not attempted to make non-Muslims the majority in Hindu or Sikh religious endowment boards, which is a key distinction in the legal argument. He stressed that the comparison between Muslim and non-Muslim endowment bodies is not valid, as the two systems operate under different legal and historical conditions.
Legal and Historical Context of Waqf and Endowment Boards
Mehta explained that Hindu religious endowment boards are responsible for managing religious activities, including rituals and temple operations, which are considered secular in nature. He cited a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that found such comparisons between Muslim and non-Muslim endowment systems to be inappropriate, as the two systems have different legal and cultural foundations.
He also pointed out that the Hindu personal laws were codified in 1956, while Muslim personal laws continue to be governed by Sharia. This has led to a legal distinction between the two systems, with the Supreme Court in 1996 stating that reforms in personal law and religious activities are a gradual process.
Government’s Legal Authority and Waqf Management
Mehta emphasized that the government has the legal authority to regulate waqf properties, as they are considered secular in nature. He argued that the JPC had consulted the Archaeological Survey of India on ancient monuments being taken out of the purview of waqf. The ASI stated that while religious activities in protected monuments had not been stopped, waqf boards managing these monuments had unilaterally allowed commercial activities, which hindered conservation efforts.
Mehta noted that in some cases, waqf boards had restricted the ASI from carrying out repair and restoration work in ancient monuments, which he argued was a misuse of the legal authority granted to the boards.
Conclusion and Legal Implications
The Centre’s argument is that the comparison between Muslim and non-Muslim endowment systems is not valid, as they are governed by different legal and historical contexts. The government maintains that the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, does not intend to change the minority character of the waqf boards, and that the Supreme Court’s role is to ensure that the legal framework is applied consistently and fairly.
As the Supreme Court continues to examine the case, the government’s position remains that the distinction between the two systems is not a matter of discrimination but a reflection of their unique legal and historical contexts.