Waqf Bill Passed by Lok Sabha – What’s New

New Delhi: Following yet another protracted debate, the Waqf bill easily passed the Rajya Sabha 24 hours after passing the Lok Sabha. While traveling, it revealed a weakness in the opposition parties’ defenses. The law received 128 votes in favor and 95 votes against.

The Biju Janata Dal, led by Naveen Patkaik, said that its seven upper house MPs would not be subject to a whip and may cast their votes for any party just hours before the election.

In a post on X, Sambit Patra, the senior leader of the party, stated that they had reached that conclusion after considering the opinions of “different sections of the Minority communities regarding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill.”

The Argument

However, the arguments were in accordance with expectations. During the debate’s commencement, Minorities Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju denied claims that the measure would hurt Muslim interests and maintained that non-Muslims could not meddle in the Waqf Board’s operations because its creation, management, and beneficiaries would all be Muslims.

He stated that proof of ownership would now be needed before a property is proclaimed Waqf, highlighting his claim that the bill is not about religion but rather property and its management and seeks to eradicate corruption. He went on to say that this will do away with the earlier clause that said that any claim made by the Waqf Board would immediately result in it being designated as Waqf property.

Sites in Delhi’s Lutyens zone, a 400-year-old shrine in Tamil Nadu, land for a five-star hotel, and even the old parliament building were among the sites that Mr. Rijiju and Union Minister Amit Shah highlighted yesterday as being designated Wakf.

Syed Naseer Hussain of the Congress, who responded “They are creating confusion about 123 properties. They are either masjids, burial grounds or dargahs” . “I want to submit a list of those,” he continued. “When the British occupied Lutyens’ Delhi, these properties were handed over to the Waqf by them after construction of the area. These properties are with the Waqf. These were the ones that are being referred to by them in relation to 2013,” he stated.

Amit Shah and Mr. Hussain also had a heated disagreement today when the former questioned the BJP’s claim that, under the current Waqf Act, people cannot file a lawsuit if they disagree with the Tribunal’s ruling. “This is untrue. If no one could go to court, how come there are so many cases pending in the Supreme Court and High Court?” he said.

“In the 2013 Act, they (the Congress) did not retain a provision for a civil litigation in the court, which has a broad scope. They only have a clause granting the High Court writ jurisdiction, which has a very narrow scope,” Mr. Shah shot back.

Speaking in favour of the bill, Union Minister JP Nadda accused the Opposition of attempting to divert and derail the issue and asserted that it would be good if they paid attention to the deprived sections of the Muslim community. He also questioned why India cannot make changes when Muslim nations are making Waqf properties transparent and digitized the system.

Giving what he called a “comparative statement,” he said the Bill was passed in Lok Sabha with 288 Ayes and 232 Noes. “Did everyone accept it? This means that there are drawbacks (in the Bill). You should see this… If you go by ‘jiski laathi uski bhains’, this will not be good for anyone,” he told the House.

Targeting the Centre over the provisions of the legislation, he said: “Why two non-Muslims are required (to be part of Waqf board)? In Tirupati, do you keep any Muslims? Are there Muslim members in the Ram Temple Trust? Let alone Muslims, you won’t put a Dalit Hindu like me also there.”

His remarks resembled those of Imtiaz Jaleel, the leader of AIMIM, who asked whether Imtiaz Jaleel would be included in the Tirupati temple trust or the Shirdi Saibaba temple trust if non-Muslims were to be recruited to the Waqf Board. No non-Sikh can be appointed to such a board if it is created for the Sikh community. “So, why are these things exclusive to the Waqf Board?” he asked.

The amended bill’s controversial clauses require two non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.

The Controversial Provisions of the Waqf’s Bill

The amended bill’s controversial clauses require two non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.

The amended bill’s controversial clauses require two non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council.

Additionally, only those who have been Muslims for at least five years are eligible to gift properties to Waqf. The government’s plan to identify a practicing Muslim has been questioned by the opposition. Additionally, they contend that preventing converts from contributing to charities violates both the legislation on equality and the fundamental freedom to profess one’s religion.

Under the proposed law, government property identified as Waqf will cease to belong to it and the local Collector will determine its ownership. The bill also proposes that an officer above the rank of collector will investigate government properties claimed as Waqf. In case of disputes, the senior government official will have the final say on whether a property belongs to Waqf or the government. This replaces the existing system where such decisions are made by Waqf tribunals. The Opposition as well as a section of the Muslim community interprets it as a government move to gain control over Waqf properties.