West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee announces not to implement Wakf Amendment Act in the state

KKN Gurugram Desk | The Waqf Amendment Act has become a major point of contention between the ruling government and opposition parties. While opposition parties continue to protest against the law, claiming that it is unconstitutional, the government defends its stance by asserting that it will help reduce disputes related to land and ensure better governance within the Waqf boards.

In a dramatic move, Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, has declared that the Waqf Amendment Act will not be implemented in the state. She has also raised concerns about the timing of this legislation, further fueling the ongoing political debate.

Key Highlights of Mamata Banerjee’s Statement:

• Mamata Banerjee assures that she will protect the rights and property of the minority community.

• Banerjee criticizes the timing of the Waqf Amendment Bill, suggesting it was ill-timed and could lead to divisive politics.

• She emphasizes that the situation in Bangladesh should serve as a warning and assures that nothing of the sort will happen in Bengal.

The political landscape is now divided over the Waqf Amendment Act, with protests intensifying, particularly in Murshidabad, where violence erupted due to opposition against the law. As the situation unfolds, both political leaders and citizens are expressing their concerns regarding the possible implications of this legislation. Let’s dive deeper into the ongoing conflict.

Mamata Banerjee’s Strong Opposition to the Waqf Amendment Act

In a public statement on April 9, 2025, Mamata Banerjee, while attending a Jain community event in Kolkata, strongly opposed the implementation of the Waqf Amendment Act in West Bengal. She assured her supporters that the state would not follow through with the central government’s move, saying, “I will protect the rights and property of minorities in Bengal.”

Banerjee raised valid concerns regarding the timing of the bill, pointing out that the passing of the bill was done in a hasty manner without sufficient public consultation. She said, “I understand that the implementation of the Waqf Act has caused a lot of distress among people, but trust me, nothing of this sort will happen in Bengal. We will ensure there is no divide in our state based on religion or politics.”

Furthermore, Banerjee questioned the bill’s rationale, urging that it should have never been passed in the first place. Her comments came amid rising concerns about religious and communal tension that could arise from such a law. Banerjee’s remarks reflect her longstanding stance on defending minority rights and the secular fabric of Bengal.

The Waqf Amendment Act: What’s the Controversy?

The Waqf Amendment Bill was passed by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha last week, receiving the President’s approval shortly afterward. The law aims to make the Waqf boards more transparent and accountable, addressing long-standing issues in land disputes related to the Waqf properties. The government claims that the law is designed to improve the governance of Waqf properties, reduce disputes, and ensure that resources are used effectively for the benefit of the community.

However, critics argue that the law is discriminatory and that it centralizes power in the hands of the government, limiting the autonomy of Waqf boards. They also claim that the law infringes upon constitutional guarantees, particularly those related to religious freedom and minority rights.

Opposition leaders, including Mamata Banerjee, see the bill as an attempt to consolidate political power while potentially fostering a divisive environment based on religious identities. They are particularly concerned about its possible misuse to control religious institutions, something that could have significant political repercussions in states with large minority populations.

Protests Erupt in Murshidabad: Violence Flares in Response to Waqf Law

As expected, the Waqf Amendment Act sparked large-scale protests in several parts of West Bengal, particularly in the Murshidabad district. The protests turned violent in Jangipur, a town in Murshidabad, as demonstrators clashed with the police. The violence included the torching of police vehicles and public property, prompting the authorities to issue a ban on gatherings under Section 163 of the Indian Penal Code.

Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, criticized Mamata Banerjee’s handling of the protests. He posted a video on social media showing the destruction caused by the violence and accused the Bengal government of failing to maintain law and order. He further alleged that the government was indulging in vote-bank politics, using the protests as a means to gain political advantage.

In response to the escalating situation, Adhikari demanded the deployment of central forces to restore order and requested the Central Government to intervene to prevent further chaos. He also appealed to the State Government to ensure the safety of public property and citizens in the area.

Government Response: Maintaining Law and Order

In an attempt to curb the violence, the district magistrate of Murshidabad issued an emergency order under Section 163, which prohibits the gathering of five or more people in public spaces. This law will be effective for 48 hours, during which time police forces will be stationed in Jangipur and other sensitive areas to prevent further escalation of violence.

The government’s decision to implement Section 163 is aimed at controlling the protests and ensuring that the law and order situation does not spiral out of control. Despite these efforts, tensions remain high, and the opposition continues to accuse the government of failing to adequately address the concerns of the protesters.

Political Repercussions: The Battle Between the State and the Center

Mamata Banerjee’s decision to reject the Waqf Amendment Act in Bengal places her at odds with the central government, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which supports the bill. The BJP has been vocal in its criticism of Banerjee, accusing her of appeasing minority communities for political gain. The central government has also expressed its disappointment with Banerjee’s stance, claiming that her refusal to implement the law undermines national unity and governance reform.

This political battle is not just about the Waqf Amendment Act, but about the larger struggle for power between the state and central authorities. The BJP views Banerjee’s actions as an attempt to solidify her position within the state by aligning herself with the minority vote bank, while Banerjee sees the law as an infringement on state rights and a threat to Bengal’s secular values.

What’s Next for the Waqf Amendment Act?

The Waqf Amendment Act may have passed at the national level, but its implementation faces serious hurdles in states like West Bengal, where regional politics often plays a crucial role in decision-making. Mamata Banerjee’s stand against the law sets the stage for more confrontation between the central government and opposition-led state governments, potentially leading to a prolonged political standoff.

If Banerjee’s defiance leads to more widespread opposition across the country, the implementation of the Waqf Amendment Act may face significant legal and political challenges in the coming months. On the other hand, the central government could push for a broader consensus or modify the law to address some of the concerns raised by critics.

The ongoing conflict over the Waqf Amendment Act highlights the growing political divide between the center and opposition parties. With leaders like Mamata Banerjee strongly opposing the law, the bill’s fate in states like West Bengal remains uncertain. As protests continue and the political battle intensifies, it is clear that the law has sparked a larger debate on the balance between state rights, minority protection, and centralized governance.

In the coming days, the country will likely witness more protests, legal challenges, and political maneuvering as both sides try to make their case. The outcome of this battle will have significant implications for the future of governance in India, especially in states where political leaders prioritize the welfare of minorities and regional autonomy.