A new law allowing people to give away property while retaining the right to live in or use it for life has triggered a debate over whether a measure designed to protect elderly parents could clash with Islamic rules governing gifts and inheritance.
The Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed by the National Parliament on Sunday, introduces a new form of property transfer under which ownership can pass to a close relative or spouse while the donor retains lifetime rights over the property.
In practical terms, a father could gift his house to his son and transfer ownership immediately but legally reserve the right to live there and enjoy its benefits until his death.
The government says the mechanism closes a longstanding legal gap and could prevent parents from losing their homes after transferring property to their children.
But Jamaat-e-Islami, Hefazat-e-Islam, Islami Andolan Bangladesh and Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis have questioned whether the new mechanism could be used to circumvent Islamic provisions on hiba, wasiyat and faraiz -- gifts, wills and inheritance.
The government and legal experts reject that interpretation, saying the law creates an optional additional route for transferring property and explicitly leaves Muslim personal law untouched.
At the heart of the dispute, therefore, is not whether elderly parents need protection -- both sides agree that they do -- but whether that protection requires a new form of property transfer and what consequences its use could have for heirs.
The bill, moved by Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman, was passed by voice vote and adds Sections 122A and 122B to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The Law Ministry said existing law offered several mechanisms for transferring property but did not specifically provide for a donor to transfer ownership while formally retaining the right to use and enjoy the property for life.
The new provision applies to transfers between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and spouses.
Children and grandchildren can similarly transfer property to parents or grandparents while retaining lifetime use rights.
For immovable property, that right must be expressly reserved in the registered deed.
If the recipient dies before the donor, ownership would pass to the recipient’s heirs according to the applicable inheritance law, but the donor’s previously reserved right to use and enjoy the property would continue until death.
Once registered, such a gift generally cannot be revoked unilaterally. However, the donor and recipient may jointly amend or cancel it through another registered deed in cases involving genuine and urgent financial, medical, educational or family needs.
Special provisions allow recourse to a district judge when a party cannot provide consent because of minority, disappearance or mental incapacity.
Why Islamic groups object
The controversy emerged during the bill’s passage, when Jamaat lawmakers argued that it conflicted with the Quran and Sunnah and staged a walkout.
The party subsequently held a demonstration at the north gate of Baitul Mukarram demanding withdrawal of the amendment.
Jamaat leaders said they supported measures to protect elderly parents but feared the new transfer mechanism could provide a route around Islamic rules governing gifts and inheritance.
Hefazat-e-Islam has taken a similar position, calling for further scrutiny to ensure the legislation does not conflict with the Islamic principles of miras and hiba.
Islami Andolan Bangladesh has also opposed the measure, arguing that existing laws should instead be enforced more effectively and social responsibility strengthened to prevent children from evicting elderly parents after obtaining their property.
Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis Amir Maulana Mamunul Haque drew a distinction between a gift made during a person’s lifetime and inheritance after death.
“The security of elderly parents must be ensured. But in the name of ensuring their security, no provision should be introduced that creates an opportunity to bypass the Shariah provisions governing hiba, wasiyat and faraiz,” he said.
“The new law must not become a tool to deprive any heir of their rights determined under Shariah.”
What the government says
The government maintains that the amendment neither changes inheritance law nor overrides existing religious mechanisms for transferring property.
Subsection 4 of the newly introduced Section 122A expressly states that the provision will not restrict or affect ordinary gifts, hiba under Muslim law or any other legally recognised method of property transfer.
Law Minister Asaduzzaman said the new system was optional.
“If someone wants to follow their religion, the law will not stand in the way. Anyone who wishes can use this option. We have specifically mentioned that in the fourth subsection,” he said.
The government argues that the amendment instead addresses a practical vulnerability: parents sometimes transfer ownership to their children and subsequently lose control of the property on which they depend for accommodation or income.
By separating ownership from lifetime enjoyment, the amendment seeks to provide a legal safeguard against that risk.
Is there actually a conflict?
Supreme Court lawyer Manzil Morshed said he saw no contradiction between the amendment and Muslim family law because individuals remain free to choose the mechanism under which they transfer their property.
“I do not see any conflict between this law and the existing Muslim family law,” he said. “Anyone can transfer property under Muslim law, or they can transfer it under this law.”
He described the provision as a form of social protection for elderly parents, allowing them to transfer property to their children without surrendering the security derived from possessing and using it.
The controversy thus turns on two competing concerns: protecting elderly property owners from becoming vulnerable after transferring their assets, and ensuring that the new mechanism cannot be used in ways that undermine religiously prescribed inheritance rights.