New Delhi: The Union Cabinet has sanctioned modifications to the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Bill, as reported by sources to Opinion Class. During a meeting held last week, the Cabinet approved 14 out of the 23 amendments suggested by a joint parliamentary committee, to which the bill was referred in August. The revised bill is expected to be presented when the House reconvenes on March 10.
The joint parliamentary committee (JPC) submitted its report on February 13, which also sparked controversy when opposition members claimed that portions of their dissenting notes had been omitted from the final document.
The central government refuted these allegations, asserting that the JPC chairperson, Jagadambika Pal of the ruling BJP, had the authority to exclude sections that could be seen as casting “aspersions” on the committee. However, following discussions involving Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, and the protesting opposition members, it was agreed that the dissenting notes would be included in their complete and original form.
The submission of the JPC’s report followed a protracted dispute between the opposition and the BJP regarding the committee’s constitution and operations, with Mr. Pal facing accusations of partiality and hastening the bill’s passage without adequate consultation.
Opposition MPs had addressed a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, alleging that Mr. Pal was attempting to “steamroll” the Waqf Bill through the House, particularly in light of the Delhi elections held on February 5, which the BJP won.
The BJP has denied these allegations; panel member and Lok Sabha MP Aparajita Sarangi stated that Mr. Pal “endeavored to listen to everyone and allocated ample time for all to propose amendments.”
The JPC conducted nearly thirty hearings over the last six months, many of which descended into disorder, with at least one instance of physical altercation when Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee broke a glass bottle on the table, claiming provocation from BJP’s Abhijit Gangopadhyay.
Ultimately, 66 amendments were suggested, of which all 44 from the opposition were dismissed, leading to further conflict. The 23 proposed by the BJP and its allies were accepted, and following a vote, 14 were approved. The JPC comprised 16 MPs from the BJP and its allies, contrasted with only 10 from the opposition.
Amendments to the Waqf Bill
The 14 modifications include a clarification regarding the requirement for two non-Muslim members, as outlined in the original bill, alongside nominated ex-officio members (who may be either Muslim or non-Muslim).
This stipulation ensures that waqf councils, whether at the state or national level, will include at least two members, and potentially more, who do not adhere to the Islamic faith, provided that the nominated ex-officio members are also not Muslim.
Another significant amendment mandates that an officer appointed by the relevant state will ascertain whether a property qualifies as ‘waqf’. In the initial draft, this determination was assigned to the District Collector.
Additionally, it has been established that the law will not have retroactive effects, as long as the property in question is already registered. In this regard, Congress leader and JPC member Imran Masood raised concerns, highlighting that approximately 90 percent of waqf properties are not registered.
Overview of the Waqf Bill
The draft bill included 44 amendments pertaining to the regulations governing central and state Waqf boards, which oversee the management of Muslim charitable properties in the country.
The proposals, which advocate for the inclusion of non-Muslim members and a minimum of two women on each Waqf Board, as well as the appointment of a Union Minister, three Members of Parliament, and four individuals of ‘national repute’ to the central Waqf Council, have incited significant protests from opposition parties.
Another suggested amendment sought to restrict donations from Muslims, stipulating that they must have been practicing for a minimum of five years, a provision that sparked controversy regarding the definition of a ‘practicing Muslim.’
Additionally, a proposal was made to assign an officer designated by the relevant state to ascertain whether a property qualifies as ‘waqf.’ In the initial draft, this determination was the responsibility of the District Collector.
Moreover, the revised regulations would prevent the Waqf Council from claiming land.
Government vs Opposition Regarding the Waqf Bill
Sources informed Opinion class last year that the intention behind these changes is to empower Muslim women and children who have “suffered” under the previous legislation. However, critics, including opposition figures such as Congress’ KC Venugopal, have characterized this as a “direct attack on freedom of religion.”
AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, a prominent opponent of the bill, along with DMK’s Kanimozhi, has also voiced concerns, asserting that it infringes upon several provisions of the Constitution, including Article 15 (the right to practice one’s religion) and Article 30 (the right of minority communities to establish and manage their educational institutions).
