New Delhi: Union minister for minority affairs Kiren Rijiju introduced the The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in the Lok Sabha but subsequently sent it to a joint parliamentary committee after Opposition MPs raised protests criticising the proposed legislation for targeting Muslims, being “unconstitutional” and “anti-federal”.
The Bill seeks to enhance the efficiency of the administration and management of waqf properties and ensure that the inheritance rights of women are not denied. It crucially omits section 40, which relates to the powers of waqf boards to decide if a property is a waqf property. It also makes the district collector the arbitrator in determining whether a government property is a waqf property.
Moreover, it seeks to change the composition of the Central Waqf Council and the state waqf boards, and ensure the representation of Muslim women and include non-Muslims. It also provides for the establishment of a separate ‘Board of Auqaf’ for Boharas and Aghakhanis.
Also read: It Is Time to Apply the ‘100-Gram’ Disqualification Mark to the Rest of India
The Bill faced opposition at the introduction stage itself as members from the INDIA bloc, including Congress, Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) (Sharad Pawar), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), National Conference (NC) along with the All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) opposed the legislation. While the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP)’s two key allies Janata Dal United (JD(U)) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) supported the Bill, the latter too said that it would not oppose it being sent to a parliamentary committee. The YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), which had supported legislations brought by the BJP in parliament during Narendra Modi’s last two tenures, also opposed the Bill.
Violative of the constitution
Opposition MPs opposed the introduction of the Bill and said that it is anti-constitutional citing Article 14, 25 and 26, they said that the legislation seeks to not allow Muslims to manage their own affairs and acquire and administer property.
“Through this Bill they are adding a provision that non-Muslims can also be part of the Council. The Supreme Court constituted the Ayodhya (temple) board. Can anyone think that a non-Hindu will be a part of the Ayodhya Mandir board? There is a Devaswom Temple Board. Can it have a non-Hindu? This provision that non-Muslims can also be part of the Council is a direct attack on the faith and freedom of religion. This Bill is a fundamental attack on the constitution. Now you are going for Muslims then you will go for Parsis, Jains and Christians,” said Congress MP K.C. Venugopal.
TMC MP Sudip Bandyopadhyay said that the Bill is both unconstitutional and anti-federal.
“It is violative of Article 14 which is equality before law and it is unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 25 and 26 which talks about the right to freedom of religion. It is against federalism as land as stated in the 7th schedule is a state subject,” he said.
“This Bill is divisive, anti-constitutional and anti-federal.”
Advertisement
DMK MP Kanimozhi said that the government is going blatantly against the constitution and is against religious minorities. Citing litigations that are underway at various mosques, alleging that they were originally temples, she said that the Bill would create hate.
“Many old mosques are in danger. Suddenly there is a PIL and archaeologists are sent there and they discover there was a temple before this and there is hate, division and issues among the people of the country,” Kanimozhi said as treasury benches raised protests.
Advertisement“This Bill is specifically targeting a particular religious group and violates Article 14.”
BJP ally JD(U) MP and union minister Lallan Singh faced slogans from Opposition members as he rose to make his speech in support of the introduction of the Bill.
“You will not conduct the House. I have to record my view,” he said.
“The speeches of many members make it appear that this is an anti-Muslim law. How is this anti-Muslim? They are giving examples of Ayodhya mandir and Gurudwara. You cannot understand the difference between an organisation and a mandir? It is not a mandir. There is no attempt to tinker with your masjid, it is only to make the organisation of waqfs more efficient,” Singh added.
In his speech, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi underlined that the Bill patently violates Articles 14, 25 and 26 and is discriminatory, arbitrary and a “grave attack on the constitution as it violates judicial independence and separation of powers.”
“Government has sought to severely restrict how Muslims can manage their waqf property. Hindu endowment boards are recognised even by usage and custom. Here you are existing for documentation,” he said. “By removing waqf by use this government wants to take over dargah, masjid and waqf property.”
“Government is saying it is giving membership to women. I am convinced that you will make Bilkis Bano and Zakia Jafri members. I want to say that with this Bill, you are dividing the nation and not uniting. You are the enemy of Muslims and this Bill is proof of that,” Owaisi added.
Responding to the JD(U) MP’s allegation that members are not able to distinguish between a mandir and a masjid and an organisation, Samajwadi Party MP Imran Masood said:
“I want to say that the Waqf Board manages masjids and under it all mosques work. And by allowing DM(District Magistrate) raaj (rule) you are allowing a conspiracy where waqf properties are taken over by encroachments.”
‘No interference in religion’
In his reply, Rijiju said that the Bill does not interfere with religion or violate the constitution.
“This Bill does not interfere with Article 14 or Article 25 to 30. In the Brahmachari versus State of West Bengal case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Waqf Board does not fall within the purview of Article 25 and 26 of the constitution of India. We have made it broad based. It is not about snatching rights but to give rights to women, children and those who are backward in the Muslim community. Entry 10 and 26 of the Concurrent List gives legislative competence to present this Bill,” he said.
Rijiju said that the Bill is being introduced based on the recommendations of a high-level committee chaired by Justice (Retired) Rajinder Sachar, as well as the reports of the joint parliamentary committee on waqf and the Central Waqf Council.
“I want to tell Congress these amendments are being brought to achieve what you (Congress) couldn’t,” he said.
Responding to the Opposition’s charge on bringing in non-Muslims into the board, Rijiju said that it was highly “objectionable”.
“They are saying that I am not a Muslim so I should not speak on this Bill. This is highly objectionable. To become a minister in this country, to control any ministry do I need to belong to any religion? They are constantly saying that I am not a Muslim so I should not speak on it,” he said.
While the Bill was tabled, Rijiju said that the government is open to discussion and was subsequently sent to a joint parliamentary committee after Opposition members raised protests. Speaker Om Birla said that he would form the committee and include members from both the treasury and Opposition benches.
