The Lok Sabha witnessed a tumultuous start on Wednesday as Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju presented the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The proposed legislation has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who have accused the government of attempting to undermine the Constitution and marginalize minority communities.
Opposition Condemns the Bill
Congress Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi strongly criticized the NDA-led government, asserting that the Bill posed a direct threat to the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
“This Bill is designed to dilute constitutional values, defame minority communities, create divisions in Indian society, and ultimately disenfranchise these communities,” Gogoi stated. He further accused the government of imposing restrictions on religious practices, referencing recent instances where state authorities prevented people from offering namaz in public spaces.
In response to these allegations, Kiren Rijiju clarified that the Bill does not interfere in religious practices or the management of mosques. He emphasized that the legislation was not intended to target any specific community but aimed at bringing reforms to Wthe aqf administration.
Parliamentary Committee Scrutiny and Rejection of Opposition Amendments
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was first introduced in Parliament last year but was met with fierce opposition, leading to its referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) led by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. After a detailed review, the JPC submitted its report on February 13, which was subsequently approved by the Union Cabinet on February 19.
However, opposition MPs within the committee raised serious concerns about the process. They claimed that their proposed 44 amendments were entirely rejected, while 14 amendments suggested by NDA MPs were accepted. Furthermore, dissent notes submitted by opposition members were allegedly removed from the report without their knowledge, further fueling discontent.
Why Is the Waqf (Amendment) Bill Facing Criticism?
Several provisions in the proposed Bill have sparked widespread objections from opposition leaders, minority groups, and legal experts. Some of the most contentious points include:
- Appointment of Non-Muslim Members in Waqf Boards: The Bill introduces a provision allowing a non-Muslim to be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Waqf Board. Additionally, state governments would be required to appoint at least two non-Muslim members to their respective Waqf boards.
- Authority of District Collectors: The legislation empowers District Collectors to determine whether a disputed property belongs to the Waqf Board or the government. Critics argue that this change may lead to a dilution of Waqf property rights.
- Abolition of “Waqf by User”: The Bill eliminates the long-standing concept of “Waqf by user,” which allowed land used continuously for religious purposes to be classified as Waqf property.
- Mandatory Centralized Registration of Waqf Properties: Under the new law, every Waqf property must be registered in a centralized database within six months of the Bill’s enactment.
- Removal of Tribunal’s Final Decision Clause: The Bill revokes the provision that previously made the Waqf Tribunal’s decision final, which, according to critics, will create legal uncertainty and weaken the authority of the Waqf Board.
Opposition Leaders Voice Strong Dissent
Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee argued that the Bill was designed to polarize Hindu and Muslim communities. He objected to a provision allowing anyone practicing Islam for five years to declare a Waqf, stating that religious duties should not form the basis of legal provisions.
“A person can fulfill their religious obligations at any stage in life—even at the time of death. Why should this be a legal requirement?” he questioned.
Previously, Banerjee had described the legislation as “misconceived, irrational, and arbitrary.” He also strongly criticized the removal of Section 40, which pertains to property claims, arguing that its omission would render the law ineffective and powerless, comparing it to a “toothless doll.”
Samajwadi Party Chief Akhilesh Yadav aimed at the BJP government, suggesting that the Waqf Bill was merely a smokescreen to distract from its failures.
“The government boasts about progressive bills, just like they claimed demonetization was a masterstroke. But let’s also discuss their failures—rising prices, unemployment, the unfulfilled promise of doubling farmers’ income, and incomplete projects like Smart Cities and river-cleaning efforts. This Waqf Bill is simply a cover for these shortcomings,” Yadav stated.
BJP Defends the Bill, Calls Out “Vote Bank Politics”
Countering the opposition’s allegations, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad defended the Bill, affirming that India belongs equally to both Hindus and Muslims. However, he took a jab at political parties that allegedly engage in vote bank politics.
“Who should be the ideals of the Muslim community? Should it be those who engage in vote-bank politics? No. The true ideals should be historical figures like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, Abdul Hamid, Ashfaqulla Khan, Raskhan, Kabir, and Malik Muhammad Jayasi,” he said.
He also highlighted how Indian Muslims have made significant contributions to the country, citing examples such as cricketer Mohammad Shami and tennis star Sania Mirza, who have brought pride to the nation.
Amit Shah Slams Congress Over Parliamentary Committee’s Role
Union Minister and senior BJP leader Amit Shah strongly criticized the Congress party, defending the process by which the Bill was drafted, scrutinized, and revised.
“The Bill was approved by the Union Cabinet before being introduced in Parliament. It was then sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, as per the opposition’s request. The committee reviewed it, made its recommendations, and sent it back to the Cabinet. Kiren Rijiju is now presenting these recommendations before the House. Unlike in Congress regimes, our committees analyze and deliberate instead of just approving everything blindly,” he remarked.
Concerns Over the Parliamentary Committee’s Role
Meanwhile, RSP MP NK Premachandran from Kerala challenged the legality of the amendments made by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, arguing that it did not have the authority to modify the Bill in such a manner.
However, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla refuted this claim, asserting that parliamentary committees have the power to make amendments to bills.
“The committee has the full right to propose modifications to any Bill. It can even change the name of the Bill and introduce new provisions. Many joint committees in the past have done exactly that,” Om Birla clarified.
As the debate over the Waqf (Amendment) Bil 2024 rages on, the political divide remains stark. While the BJP defends the Bill as a necessary reform, the opposition sees it as an attack on minority rights and an attempt to polarize communities. The controversy surrounding the Bill is expected to continue, with heated debates in both Parliament and public discourse in the coming weeks.