Part 1: Advocate Zunaid Khalid on Legal and Religious Concerns
Afrida Rahman Ali: Mr. Khalid, what’s your first reaction to the Supreme Court’s interim observations on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?
Adv. Zunaid Khalid: The introduction of the law of limitation into the Waqf Act is deeply worrying. It means anyone who’s been in adverse possession of a Waqf property for 12 years can now claim ownership through civil courts. The Supreme Court has not stayed this clause, and that’s a serious loophole that can lead to mass dispossession of Waqf land.
Afrida: The government says this is aimed at reform and transparency. Isn’t that justified?
Khalid: Yes, corruption exists. Waqf Boards have failed to deliver benefits to the community. But instead of fixing the system, this amendment destroys the religious framework. It changes the very concept of Waqf. The government should have made the १९९५ Act stronger, not dismantled the Waqf structure itself.
Afrida: How do you view the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards?
Khalid: It’s unconstitutional. Waqf is a religious endowment. You can’t bring in non-Muslims into its governance. Article २५ and २६ of the Constitution guarantee religious autonomy. Diluting that by state control and renaming Waqf institutions is a direct intrusion into religious freedom.
Afrida: Some say Waqf hasn’t really helped the poor. Why resist change if the current system isn’t working?
Khalid: That argument cannot justify erasing religious institutions. The concept of Waqf is sacred—it’s about charity and endowment. If the boards are mismanaged, punish the corrupt, improve transparency. But don’t strip the community of its constitutional rights. This Act is a hostile takeover of Waqf property under the garb of reform.
Part 2: Abhay Vaidya on Constitutional Balance and Communal Trust
Afrida Rahman Ali: Mr. Vaidya, you’ve written extensively on the subject. What is your reading of the Supreme Court’s intervention?
Abhay Vaidya: The Supreme Court is doing the right thing by stepping in. This isn’t just about legality—it’s about ensuring trust between communities and protecting the Constitution. The interim stay till May ५ ensures that no appointments or property changes can occur meanwhile, which is a responsible course.
Afrida: You wrote a column titled "Beyond Waqf 2025: Towards Hindu-Muslim Synergy in India." What were you trying to convey?
Vaidya: That if the goal is efficient religious property management, why single out Muslims? Hindu and Christian trusts also have irregularities. Why not bring a common law for all religious properties? Targeting one community creates mistrust. We should be aiming for communal harmony, not division.
Afrida: Is this debate now more about constitutional values than property?
Vaidya: Exactly. This is about the Constitution’s supremacy. As Nani Palkhivala once argued, the Constitution stands above the legislature. The state can’t override religious freedom in the name of governance. This law, as framed, gives excessive power to bureaucrats—like collectors being final arbiters of Waqf disputes. That’s dangerous.
Afrida: Your final thoughts—what should people take away from this debate?
Vaidya: That the Constitution is working. The courts are alive to the concerns. And we must all remember: this isn’t a win or loss for any one community—it’s a test of our collective commitment to pluralism, rights, and fair governance.
Afrida: Thank you both—Mr. Khalid and Mr. Vaidya—for your clarity and depth on this important issue. We await the next hearing on May ५ with keen attention.
