Waqf (Amendment) Bill referred to joint House panel after Opposition digs in heels

“I will clear misconceptions about the Bill in detail. There is no interference in freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. This Bill gives rights to those who had not got space earlier. It includes Muslim women and backwards among Muslims who were earlier suppressed,” Rijiju said.

Asserting that the Waqf Act, as amended in 1995, did not serve its purpose, Rijiju said, “Some people have captured the whole Waqf Board. We are bringing this Bill to provide justice to all Muslims.”

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill proposes several key changes, including allowing a non-Muslim chief executive officer and at least two non-Muslim members to be appointed by the state government to the Waqf Boards at the state level. It is also proposed to bring the district collector as the arbiter on whether a property is Waqf property or government land.

Rijiju recalled that in 1976, a Waqf enquiry report recommended that proper steps be taken to simplify the tribunal system to do away with too many pending cases. It also said that audits and accounts of the Waqf Board were not proper and needed to be improved, he added.

“The Sachar Committee report said that Rs 163 crore are generated as annual income of 4.9 lakh registered Waqf properties. It said that if these are efficiently managed, Rs 12,000 crore per annum would be generated. I can say as minister that the income can be much higher than that. The Committee also said that the Waqf Board should be more broad-based, and there should be two women in the Central Waqf Council and in the state Waqf boards. This Bill conforms to the Sachar Committee recommendations,” Rijiju said.

He added that a joint committee under Congress leader K Rehman Khan also said that the Waqf Board has inadequate infrastructure and manpower. It added that proper documentation be maintained, there be computerisation and a centralised database of the same, and the Waqf Act be relooked, Rijiju added.

Responding to criticism that the ruling of the tribunal would not be final under the present Bill, Rijiju said, “In the existing law (amended in 1995), a case goes to the tribunal, which either sits on it or gives a ruling that cannot be reviewed in any court. Is that right in a democracy? No law can become a super law under our Constitution, but the Waqf Act 1995 acted like that.”

He also faulted the present law for having no law of limitation, adding that if someone said that long back his ancestors used to read the namaz on a piece of land, that land would be made Waqf property.

In the last year alone, Rijiju said, 194 complaints were received about encroachment or illegal transfer of Waqf land. “Should Bohras, Ahmadiyas and Agakhanis not be heard because their population is low? Privately, Muslim MPs also told me that mafias are controlling the Waqf Board,” he added.

Responding to the Opposition’s charge that the Bill was being pushed through without consultation with stakeholders, Rijiju said, “We have talked to 19 state and UT Waqf Board chairmen and CEOs since 2015 about this. Representatives of Bohras, Ahmediyas, Agakhanis, Pasmandas and Muslim women were consulted.”

He also cited complaints received regarding existing Waqf Boards – in Mumbai, a development project got stalled because someone complained about the land being Waqf property; in Tamil Nadu, a 1,500-year-old village was declared Waqf property; in Gujarat, the Surat Municipal Corporation office was declared Waqf property; and in Karnataka, 29,000 acres of Waqf land was diverted for commercial purposes.

Regarding why the collector should decide whether a piece of land is government land or Waqf land, Rijiju said, “Revenue records are with the collector, that is why there is a collector. Collectors do not belong to any political party.”

“In every tribunal, judicial members are always retired judges. Technical members are officials,” he said, responding to objections to the composition of the tribunal.

“Filing of appeals before the tribunal would happen in 90 days and disposal in six months. This would take care of thousands of cases pending now. Technology will be used for efficient functioning and all Waqf documentation will be monitored by the ministry,” he said, defending the Bill.

Rijiju added, “Women’s representation has been mandated in the new Central Waqf Councils and state Waqf state boards. There will also be representation of different sections among Muslims like the Bohras and backward sections.”

Earlier, members of the Opposition parties opposed the introduction of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, labelling it unconstitutional. The members took objection to non-Muslims being members of the central Waqf governing council in the new Bill, wondering whether Muslims can be members of governing boards of temples like the Ram temple at Ayodhya.

The NDA members, however, lent their support to the Bill, saying it was meant to make the Waqf Board transparent.

Calling the Bill draconian, Congress leader K C Venugopal said, “This Bill is a fundamental attack on the Constitution. Waqf properties are coming from the donations of the believers. Article 26 is very clear – freedom to manage religious affairs subject to public order, morality… Every denomination shall have the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes… To manage its own affairs on matters of religion, to own and acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such property in accordance with the law. This is Article 26 of the Constitution. Through this Bill, they are putting a provision that non-Muslims can also be members of the governing council.”

He added, “Through you, I want to ask the government a question. The Supreme Court constituted the board of Ayodhya. Can anyone think that a non-Hindu will be part of the Ayodhya mandir? There is a board in Guruvayur temple. Can a non-Hindu be a member of it? This is a direct attack on the freedom of religion. You are going for Muslims. Next, they will go for Christians, then Jains… We are Hindus. We are believers. But at the same time, we also respect other religions. Last time people of India taught you a lesson. You are trying it again.”

Venugopal also hit out at the Bill doing away with the concept of ‘Waqf by use’, saying, “There is a concept of Waqf by use. There is a more than 200-year-old mosque near Parliament. No one knows about its deed. This will make the existence of every mosque difficult. You want to create a divide between communities and provoke violence everywhere.”

Samajwadi Party MP from Rampur Mohibullah Nadvi said, “In Char Dham and other temples, there cannot be a Muslim. In Gurudwara committees, there can only be Sikhs. And this is their right. But why this injustice towards Muslims?”

Sudip Bandyopadhyay of the Trinamool Congress said that the Bill was violative of Article 14, which ensured equality before law, as it was discriminatory against one religion. “It is against federalism as land is a state subject. In 1962, the SC ruled that the government should not interfere in religion,” he said.

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Kanimozhi said that the Bill shuns justice in every possible manner, adding, “Would you allow a Muslim or Christian to be on the board of a Hindu temple? Why should somebody who does not believe in a religion have the right to take decisions on behalf of that religion? Now the collector and another authority above them will be deciding whether the property belongs to the government or the Waqf Board. This Bill will destroy what our forefathers dreamt India should be.”

Janata Dal (United) leader and Union minister Rajiv Ranjan (Lalan) Singh defended the Bill, saying, “How is it anti-Muslim? This is not about a temple or a mosque. This is about bringing transparency in an institution, which isn’t a place of worship. Waqf Board is made by law and if it starts malfunctioning, the government has the right to introduce transparency. They are talking about minorities. Who killed thousands of Sikhs here on the streets?”

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MP Asaduddin Owaisi said that the government’s intention was to take over dargahs and masjids.