‘No interference’ vs ‘attack on Constitution’: Govt, Opposition cross swords over Waqf (Amendment) Bill in Lok Sabha

“In 2013, some steps were taken that will make you think why such steps were taken. In 2013, it was provided that any person – of any religion – could create a Waqf. This diluted the original Act. Then it was provided that there could be only Shias in Shia Board and only Sunnis in Sunni Board. One provision was brought under Section 108 that the Waqf Board would override any law of the land. How is this acceptable?” Rijiju charged. “Cases were going on since 1970. CGO complex, etc., were claimed by the Waqf Board. The UPA government denotified 123 properties and gave them to the Waqf Board. Even the Parliament building where we are sitting was being claimed. Had the (Narendra) Modi government not come to power, all these would have been given away,” Rijiju added.

Dismissing the charge that the Centre was interfering in Muslim religious practices, Rijiju said, “The government is not interfering in any religious practice or institution. There is no provision in this to interfere in the management of any mosque. This is simply an issue of management of a property.”

He then cited court judgments to argue that management of Waqf properties was a secular act not dealing with religion. “The Kerala High Court ruled that the Waqf Board is a statutory body, and not a representative body of Muslim community. The Allahabad High Court ruled that Mutawali does not have proprietary rights, and that his powers are of a secular and not religious character. The Rajasthan High Court ruled that management of property of a temple is of a purely secular character. So, please stop saying why a non-Muslim can be included in a body relating to Muslims,” Rijiju said.

“You said in 2013 that any person can create Waqf. We have reversed it to say that only such a person who follows Islam for at least five years can create Waqf. We have allowed Shia, Sunni, backward Muslims, women and expert non-Muslims to be part of the Waqf Board…. There can be four non-Muslims in it. And there have to be two women. Look at the Waqf Boards till now. Where are the women?” Rijiju said.

In 2006, Rijiju said, there were 4.9 lakh Waqf properties, and the total income from these was Rs 163 crore. “It is now Rs 166 crore after you added properties to it. This is unacceptable. Even the Sachar Committee said that Rs 12,000 crore would have been generated as revenue if the Waqf properties were managed well. How much it would have benefited poor Muslims. Today, there are 8.72 lakh Waqf properties. Things would have changed for the good if these were managed well,” he added.

“Registered properties will not be interfered with – this law is prospective and not retrospective. The disputed properties will be decided by court,” Rijiju said, adding, “These were the people who claimed that Muslims’ citizenship would be snatched by CAA? Has that happened? Will you apologise for misleading people?”

The Joint Committee of Parliament that scrutinised the Bill recommended an officer higher than collector to have powers to decide on Waqf properties, Rijiju said, adding that the government has accepted the suggestion. “We have disallowed the creation of any Waqf property in tribal lands to deprive Adivasis of their land. We have agreed to the committee’s recommendation of a three-member Waqf tribunal. We have fixed their tenure. We have also opened the path of going to the court if one is not satisfied with the decision of the Waqf Board. We have made the law of limitation apply to the Waqf Act so as to prevent prolonged litigation. Earlier, any land could be declared Waqf property under Section 40. We have removed the provision, which used to be rampantly misused,” he underlined, asserting that the committee had undertaken extensive consultations.

Calling the Bill an attack on the Constitution, Gogoi said, “Through this Bill, the government wants to dilute the Constitution, defame minority communities, divide Indian society, and disenfranchise minority communities.  Recently, their double-engine governments did not allow people to read namaz on roads. How many minority MPs do you have?”

“I will tell how they are anti-Constitution. The Bill talks about any person showing or demonstrating that he is practising Islam. People will have to give certificates to the government as to which religion they believe in. Do they ask any other community whether you practise your religion for five years?” he sought to know.

Gogoi asserted that permitting any person – and not just a Muslim – to create a Waqf was actually a secular principle, adding that more than two members of the Waqf Board could be women even in the 1995 Act. “Their eyes are on the properties and lands of a certain community. Tomorrow, they will eye the lands of other communities,” he alleged.

“Clause 44 removes Section 110 dealing with powers of the Board to make regulations with the permission of the state government. Section 109 – the power of the state government to make rules – has been restricted. They are removing the provision of election of members of the Board,” Gogoi said.

“They say that courts were powerless after the ruling of the Waqf Tribunal. This is false. The high court had the power to intervene under the 2013 Act. Under the parent Act, under Section 96, the Centre had the power to give directions to the state governments, who could give directions to the Board in case of injustice. How many times in the last 11 years did you give any direction?” Gogoi added, countering the charges of the government.

He then accused the Centre of targeting the Muslim community. “Are you trying to taint a community that fought the Revolt of 1857 alongside Mangal Pandey? When you were not supporting the Quit India Movement, that community supported it…. Our nationalism is to be united in mutual love for Bharat Mata. It is respect for the tricolour that you did not respect. It is respect for the freedom struggle that you did not take part in. They complain when reports come from the US that minorities are not safe in India,” he said.

Supporting the Bill, the BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “The Waqf Board is not a religious body; it is just a statutory body. The Mutawali is just a manager. I will quote from M Hidayatullah, a legal luminary, to prove this. As per him, the Mutawali is just a manager. So, should the Centre be quiet when such misuse is happening?”

“I want to ask how many schools and hospitals were built on Waqf property? How many orphanages were made? If good funding comes due to this (to be passed) Act, why do they have a problem? They have a problem because of politics. They also created a ruckus after the Shah Bano judgment of the Supreme Court… Rajiv Gandhi reversed the Shah Bano verdict through Parliament,” Prasad said, accusing the Congress of minority appeasement.

Countering Gogoi’s point that the high court had powers even in the existing law, Prasad said that people could not move the court under it, though the high court could take cognisance of a Waqf-related issue if it wished.