Waqf has a long, winding history in India. Initially, back in 1894, the British came up with the Waqf Bill for the first time via a judgment. At that time, the British were grappling with its legal status. From 1894 to 1947, laws and amendments were introduced to shape the Waqf Act’s legal system. Later, after 1947, the Congress-led government eventually turned it into a system with far-reaching authority. So much so that now Waqf Boards can claim any property using several clauses, and the onus to prove the land they have claimed is not Waqf lies on the actual owner, which in many cases is the central or the state government.
Waqf was initially supposed to be about charitable endowments, which has drastically changed over time. It has grown into something much larger, often at odds with the secular framework of the country. The initial rules were indeed set by the British, but it was the Congress that took it further—and took it too far. Here is how the Waqf has changed over time.
British rule – A shaky start for Waqf
Waqf properties were dedicated under Islamic law for religious and charitable purposes. However, under British rule, Waqf faced legal hurdles. In 1894, a landmark judgment by the Privy Council in Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak vs Russomoy Dhur Chowdhury sent a shockwave through the Muslim community. According to the judgment, Waqfs which benefited the founder’s family were declared invalid. The Council cited English law’s aversion to perpetuities as the basis of the judgment.
It was not a minor ruling and challenged a tradition stretching back to the Delhi Sultanate. Notably, Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor gave villages to Multan’s Jama Masjid, which continued through the Mughal era’s vast Waqf holdings. The decision by the Privy Council caused uncertainty among the Muslim community.
The case that led to the establishment of the foundation of the Waqf Act stemmed from a family feud over a Waqf property in Bengal. Two brothers, Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak and his sibling, had created a Waqf property as per Islamic law. The intention behind creating it was to provide for their descendants. The remaining benefits would eventually flow to charitable causes. Following the death of the founders, a creditor named Russomoy Dhur Chowdhury challenged the validity of the Waqf in court.
He argued that there was no legal standing of the Waqf under British India’s judicial system. The dispute escalated to the Privy Council in London, where the core issue discussed was whether this Waqf, designed to support the family indefinitely, aligned with the legal norms of the British. It was not about the legality of the Waqf’s management but its very existence that was at stake and created a fissure between Islamic traditions and colonial law.
Following the judgment, Muslim leaders pushed back against the ruling, which eventually worked in their favour. In 1913, the British introduced the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, which allowed Waqfs—even those aiding families—to exist, as long as charity was the ultimate goal.
Over time, till 1923, more structure was added to the Waqf Act, requiring registration and oversight to curb mismanagement of the properties. The aim was to provide a practical governance structure to the Waqf. The British could have scrapped it, but they decided to box it in and keep it running, only to hand it over to the Congress-led Indian government after independence.
How Congress helped Waqf get unchecked powers
When India gained independence, the Congress had a chance to rethink Waqf’s place in a secular nation. However, Congress decided to expand its powers. In 1954, under the first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Waqf Act was introduced, replacing the 1923 law. The law established Central and State Waqf Boards to oversee properties. It was not merely a handover of power, but it gave Waqf a formal foothold in the country. The Waqf Act of 1954 allowed boards to register and manage endowments with minimal checks.
Though the base structure of the Waqf Act was introduced in 1954, the real shift came in 1995 when the Congress-led central government introduced a new Waqf Act. Under the new Act, Waqf Tribunals were established to handle disputes outside regular courts. The move raised eyebrows as it gave Waqf its own judicial setup instead of integrating it into a broader legal framework that resolves all cases. The empowerment given to the boards enabled them to exert sway over properties and disputes, making it extremely difficult for a common man to get justice in case a property is wrongfully declared Waqf.
Then came the 2013 amendment, where Congress doubled down. Just before losing the Lok Sabha Elections in 2014, Congress brought amendments to the Waqf Act, handing sweeping powers to the Waqf Boards, including surveying properties, “reclaiming” land, evicting occupants, and more without much oversight.
For instance, Section 54 of the Waqf Act allows boards to issue orders to remove “encroachers”, and Section 32 empowers them to manage Waqf properties almost autonomously. The Central Waqf Council got a bigger role too, advising on policy without clear accountability. The result is clear: Waqf Boards now have around six lakh properties under the Waqf umbrella. From markets to farms, residential plots, government buildings, temples, and even entire villages have been claimed as Waqf properties since then. Instead of scaling it back, which should have been the aim of the government, Congress gave Waqf Boards tools to flex their muscles—sometimes at the expense of other claimants. Why? Mostly because of appeasement politics. The 1894 judgment contained Waqf to some extent, but what happened in the following decades changed the scenario completely.
Why this matters
The evolution of Waqf is not just history. It is a live issue. Waqf Boards operate with little scrutiny. Even if the claims they make are proven to be fake, Waqf Boards do not face any legal action. In a secular nation, the existence of Waqf raises questions. Should a religious system have such latitude? Why did Congress not trim its powers? Why does Waqf still exist?
