As Parliament clears Waqf Bill, Rijiju accuses Oppn of scare tactics; Cong MP says it treats Muslims as second-class citizens

Rijiju hit out at the Opposition for scaring Muslims. “We are not scaring Muslims, you are scaring them and trying to take them out of the mainstream… The Opposition misled Muslims on CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act). Now do not mislead them further. Not a single Muslim is going to be harmed. Crores of poor Muslims are going to benefit by passing the historic Waqf Amendment Bill,” he said.

“With a new dawn, new hope, I request the Opposition to show a big heart and pass the Bill unanimously,” the minister added.

The House, meanwhile, negated all the amendments moved by Opposition members, including Fauzia Khan, Syed Naseer Hussain, A A Rahim, Manoj Kumar Jha, and John Brittas. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) member Tiruchi Siva sought a division of votes on an amendment moved by him seeking a change in Clause 10 of the Bill that provides for the appointment of two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council. The amendment was negated by the House, with 125 votes against it and 92 in favour.

Rajya Sabha also passed the Mussalman Wakf (Repealing) Bill, 2025.

While Opposition parties accused the government of targeting the community, there was one crack in the ranks. Hours before the voting, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), which had earlier said it would vote against the Bill, chose not to issue any whip and let it be known that its members could “exercise their conscience”.

Tabling the Bill in the Upper House, Rijiju said the “inclusive” legislation aims to empower Muslim women and protect the rights of all Muslim sects. “The management, creation of Waqf properties will be done by Muslims, and beneficiaries will be Muslims. The waqif and mutawallis will be Muslims… There is no question of involvement of non-Muslims in these matters,” he said.

Asserting that the Bill aims to bring “transparency, accountability, and efficiency”, Rijiju said it has nothing to do with religion, but deals only with properties.

On apprehensions regarding ‘Waqf by user’, he said properties already registered with proper documentation will not see retrospective action. “All such Waqf properties will remain so… But if there is any disputed land or any matter that is sub-judice, we cannot do away with the right of courts.”

Leader of the House J P Nadda, who spoke for the Bill, rejected the Opposition’s claim that the government was bulldozing the legislation through. “The Joint Parliamentary Committee that was set up in 2013 (under the UPA government) only had 13 members. The committee that the Modi government set up had 31 members. What is the other benchmark for following democratic norms?” he said.

The Waqf Bill only meant to bring “checks and balances” in the handling of Waqf properties, the same as in Muslim countries across the world, Nadda said.

Like Rijiju and Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday, Nadda spoke about the amendments made to the Waqf Act by the UPA government in 2013, and claimed that “the wrong direction” between 2013 and 2025 had resulted in losses to Muslims and benefits to the land mafia.

From the Opposition side, Congress MP from Karnataka Syed Naseer Hussain initiated the debate, slamming the Bill for “seeking to treat Muslims as second-class citizens”. “Everybody knows who benefits when communal polarisation takes place,” Hussain said.

He also questioned the government’s assertion that under the existing law, people could not move courts to challenge a Waqf tribunal’s decision. “How are there so many pending cases in the high court and Supreme Court, if none could move court?” asked Hussain, who was a member of the Waqf board in Karnataka.

Amit Shah interjected at this moment, saying: “They did not keep a provision for a civil suit, which has a wide purview, in the 2013 Act. They only had provision for writ jurisdiction in the high court, which has a very limited purview.”

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge intervened, requesting the Chair not to permit “disturbance of the flow of the speech of the speaker”, saying the Treasury benches could make their points during their speeches.

Resuming his address, Hussain spoke about the provision that only someone who has been a practising Muslim for five years can create a Waqf. “How will the government determine who is a practising Muslim – through his skull cap, beard, dress, CCTV cameras at homes and mosques to check if they are reading the namaz? Will they have a different department to determine who is a Muslim?” Hussain sought to know.

The Trinamool Congress’s (TMC) Mohammad Nadimul Islam made the same point later, saying, “Will Muslims have to register to prove they are Muslims?”

The CPI(M)’s John Brittas asked whether a regime “interested in ghar wapsi” would put the same conditions before a newly converted Hindu, in order to consider that person a Hindu.

Islam and Hussain also objected to the Bill allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards. Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha said he would be happy if the government promoted “mixed representation” in all religious institutions, but could not support “experiments” being conducted in Muslim institutions alone. Alleging a concerted attempt to marginalise communities, he asked whether the Bill was a “legal cover for the bulldozer”.

Jha urged the government not to “hurry” with the legislation. “… everything will fall apart… Send this again for consultation and reduce the Executive’s influence in this,” he said.

About the government raising the issue of 123 prime properties being handed over to the Waqf board by the previous UPA government ahead of the Lok Sabha elections of 2014, Hussain said: “These are either masjids, graveyards or dargahs. I want to submit a list of those. When the British occupied Lutyens Delhi, these properties were handed over to the Waqf by them after construction in the area. These properties are with the Waqf.”

Questioning the government laying down the condition of documents to prove ‘Waqf by user’, Hussain said: “We had lots of kings and dynasties throughout our history; there are beautiful temples, mosques and gurdwaras. How will they show documents of something 500 years old?”

On the requirement to register on a government portal within six months, Islam asked whether those who could not do so would have their land deemed illegal.

Islam added: “The Bill says it brings Muslim women into the Boards. But women are already there in state Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council.”

Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) asserted the same, adding: “The 2013 Waqf also had reservations for women.” The government should next bring a Bill to reserve 80 per cent positions in all Hindu religious institutions for Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs, Singh challenged, adding that he would support it.

“The government says we are bringing this law for the benefit of Muslims… You don’t have Muslim MPs except one, Ghulam Ali; you have no Muslim minister; you finished the politics of Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Shahnawaz Husain. Are you benefiting Muslims?” Singh asked.

Tiruchi Siva pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed a resolution rejecting the Bill, and said the legislation would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Participating in the debate, Kartikeya Sharma, an Independent member from Haryana, said that the Bill furthers Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of ‘Sabka Sath, Sabha Vikas.’ He said it has been brought with the intention of management and registration of property and financial transparency.

Opposing the Bill, Congress member Jebi Mather Hisham said the Bill is not for transparency but it is to control. It is not to reform but to coerce, she said. She said that her party supports and stands with the people of Munambam in their quest for Justice. Around 600 families, mostly Christians, at Munambam in Kerala’s Ernakulam district have been protesting against the Waqf Board’s claim on the 400-acre land that they have allegedly inhabited for generations.

Dr M Thambidurai of the AIADMK said his party is committed to the welfare of minorities. The interests of Muslims should be protected and safeguarded, he said.

Attacking the Opposition parties, BJP’s Dr Sudhanshu Trivedi said when the country got Independence, then the symbols of Muslim society were people like Ustad Bismilla Khan and Ustad Zia Fariduddin Dagar. “With whom does the leadership of the Muslim community connect today? Ishrat Jahan, Yakub Memon, Mukhtar Ansari, Atiq Ahmed, Dawood Ibrahim…,” he said.

When Trivedi made these remarks, Nationalist Congress Party (SP) member Fauzia Khan objected to his remarks and demanded that the same should be expunged. However, Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar said, “If she carefully goes through what Trivedi had said she would appreciate it. He has not cast any aspersions.”

At this point, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman raised objections to some remarks made by an Opposition member. To this, Congress member Jairam Ramesh said, “Finance Minister has found a statement objectionable but the statement of the honourable member (Trivedi) stigmatising a whole community is objectionable and what is worse is the Chairman lending respectability to that view. This is even worse.”

Amit Shah clarified that Trivedi had not made the remarks about Muslims but his statement was aimed at the Opposition, the INDIA alliance.

Responding to Jairam Ramesh’s comments, Dhankhar said that the Chairman has become an “easy punching bag.”

Tiruchi Siva also raised the point of order under Rule 261 about remarks made by Trivedi.

Opposing the Bill, Samajwadi Party member Javed Ali Khan said he wanted to know from the government how many people supported and how many opposed the Bill during the feedback received on it. He said ministers should table proof in support of their remarks about the Waqf Board’s claims.

Supporting the Bill, Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale raised the issue of protests by Buddhist monks demanding control over the Mahabodhi temple and urged the government to fulfil their demands.

Nominated member Gulam Ali demanded that a CBI inquiry should be ordered into the loot of Waqf.

Speaking on the Bill, NCP-SCP’s Fauzia Khan said it is not a reform, but an encroachment over interests of minorities.

Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM) member Upendra Kushwaha and Janata Dal (United) member and Union minister Ram Nath Thakur supported the Bill. Kushwaha also raised the issue of protests in connection with the Bodh Gaya temple management.