The Waqf Amendment Bill, which seeks to modify laws governing Muslim charitable properties, was tabled in the Lok Sabha amid fierce opposition protests. The bill has been criticised as “draconian” by the opposition, leading to a heated debate between Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and opposition leaders.
Rijiju opened the discussion by accusing the previous Congress-led UPA government of making questionable amendments to Waqf laws, including the denotification of 123 major properties, which, he claimed, were then handed over to the Waqf Board.
He went on to assert that if the Congress had remained in power, even Parliament could have been claimed as Waqf property.
Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi responded by rejecting Rijiju’s statements as “misleading” and argued that the amendments proposed by the BJP government were an assault on the Constitution.
He also pointed out that the Ministry of Minority Affairs had never discussed this bill in its parliamentary committee meetings last year, questioning the intent behind its sudden introduction.
During the debate, Rijiju claimed that a legal case dating back to 1970 in Delhi had involved several properties, including the Parliament building, which the Delhi Waqf Board had reportedly claimed as its own.
He maintained that the amendments were necessary to prevent the misuse of Waqf laws, which had allegedly led to significant numbers of properties being declared as Waqf land without proper records.
The Minister emphasised that the bill did not interfere with religious sentiments but was merely a property management issue. He asserted that Waqf Boards were responsible for supervising properties rather than making arbitrary claims over land.
He further claimed that the new amendments had removed a “draconian” provision that previously allowed any land to be declared as Waqf property.
To support his argument, Rijiju cited examples of temples and gurdwaras being claimed as Waqf land, despite no historical records of mosques existing in those areas.
He specifically mentioned the Surendereshwar Temple in Tamil Nadu and cases in Karnataka and Haryana, where thousands of acres had allegedly been declared Waqf land.
He further stated that Waqf properties constituted the third-largest pool of land in India, following the Railways and Defence, but that they remained private holdings. He reassured the opposition that the amendments would not be retrospective, dismissing fears that past property claims would be revoked.
The debate took a political turn when Rijiju accused the Congress of misleading the public and using the Waqf issue for appeasement politics. He declared that the government wanted Waqf institutions to be “secular and inclusive.”
One of the major proposed changes includes a provision requiring at least two non-Muslims to be part of each state Waqf Board and the central Waqf Council.
He also highlighted the lack of female representation on Waqf Boards and announced that the bill would mandate the inclusion of at least two women members.
Gaurav Gogoi, in his rebuttal, raised concerns about a new clause requiring donations to Waqf Boards to come only from Muslims who have practised their faith for at least five years.
He questioned whether the government intended to introduce religious certification for donations, arguing that such clauses were discriminatory and went against the principles of justice.
The debate intensified when members of the opposition accused the BJP of attempting to malign minority communities. During the session, NK Premachandran of the Revolutionary Socialist Party challenged the authority of the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) that had reviewed the bill, arguing that it had exceeded its mandate by introducing amendments that had not been explicitly authorised by the House.
His argument centred around 14 changes made to the bill, all suggested by BJP or allied party MPs. He contended that the JPC should not have been allowed to make these alterations.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah intervened briefly, defending the committee’s actions. He explained that the committee, led by BJP MP Jagadambika Pal, had made recommendations, but the final changes had been approved by the Union Cabinet, not the committee itself.
The Waqf Amendment Bill has been at the centre of controversy since it was first introduced in August last year. The opposition has maintained that its provisions are excessive and politically motivated.
The bill was referred to the JPC, which submitted its report in February after opposition MPs alleged their concerns had been ignored.
The BJP has countered these claims, asserting that all views were considered and that the bill was necessary to regulate the management of Waqf properties effectively.
The JPC reportedly held nearly three dozen hearings, some of which ended in disorder. In one incident, Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee allegedly smashed a glass bottle on the table in protest.
The committee received 66 proposed amendments, of which all 44 suggestions from the opposition were rejected, while 23 from BJP and its allies were accepted. Following a vote, 14 of these 23 proposals were incorporated into the final bill.
Follow us
