Waqf (Amendment) Act hearing: Solicitor General states non-Muslim representation on waqf boards capped at two, ensuring they remain a minority

Waqf (Amendment) Act Hearing Sparks Debate as Solicitor General Defends Cap on Non-Muslim Members

A heated legal debate has erupted in the Supreme Court over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserting that the law intentionally limits non-Muslim representation on Waqf boards to just two members, ensuring they remain a minority in decision-making bodies. The statement, made during today's hearing, has intensified discussions about religious representation, governance transparency, and constitutional principles in the administration of India's vast Waqf properties.  

The Solicitor General argued that restricting non-Muslim participation helps preserve the Islamic character of Waqf boards, which manage religious endowments governed by Sharia principles. He emphasized that since these properties are meant for Muslim charitable purposes, majority Muslim representation ensures adherence to their intended religious function. However, critics challenging the provision contend that it undermines equality and secular values enshrined in the Constitution, particularly when Waqf boards oversee an estimated 800,000 acres of land nationwide—some of which include prime urban properties.  

The hearing has drawn polarized reactions across political and legal circles. Opposition leaders have condemned the restriction as discriminatory, calling for more inclusive representation to ensure accountability in managing Waqf assets. Meanwhile, supporters of the provision, including some ruling party members, maintain that Muslim-majority governance is essential for maintaining the religious integrity of these endowments. Legal experts remain divided, with some questioning whether the cap violates Article 14's guarantee of equality before the law.  

Beyond the courtroom, the issue has sparked broader conversations about religious autonomy versus state oversight. While Muslim organizations largely back the current structure, skeptics argue that limiting non-Muslim voices could weaken transparency in the administration of valuable Waqf holdings. The Supreme Court's impending ruling is now being closely watched, as it could set a precedent not only for Waqf boards but also for how India regulates other religious trusts in the future.  

As the nation awaits the verdict, the case highlights the delicate balance between preserving religious identity and ensuring equitable governance—a debate that resonates deeply in India's diverse socio-legal landscape.