© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
When Opposition members raised objections to the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf boards in states – both in their dissent notes to the Joint Committee of Parliament that discussed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and during the marathon debates on it in Parliament – the Centre had disagreed vehemently.
It drew a sharp distinction between religious activity where, it said, no non-Muslim would be involved, and administrative activity of the Waqf boards, adding that the mandate of non-Muslims there was only to ensure proper functioning of Waqf charities.
However, when the Supreme Court raised questions over the same issue during a hearing against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, the Centre agreed to pause any appointment to the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards till May 5 – the next date of the Court hearing.
Similarly, the Centre undertook in the Court that the character of no Waqf property, including ‘Waqf-by-user’, whether declared by notification or by registration, would be changed till May 5.
Again, this was in contrast to the Centre’s dismissal of the Opposition’s concerns over denotification of Waqf-by-user properties, during the debate in Parliament. Instead, the Modi government had flagged prime properties allegedly claimed under Waqf, with Union Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju mentioning 123 such premises in the national capital.
In the parliamentary panel which took up the Waqf Bill, 12 Opposition MPs – Arvind Sawant (Shiv Sena-UBT), Kalyan Bannerjee (Trinamool Congress), Mohammad Nadimul Haque (TMC), the DMK’s A Raja and M M Abdullah, Sanjay Singh (Aam Aadmi Party), Mohibbullah Nadvi (Samajwadi Party), the Congress’s Syed Naseer Hussain, Mohammad Jawed, Imran Masood and Gaurav Gogoi, and Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) – had flagged in their dissent notes the provisions in the legislation for inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies and the rejection of Waqf-by-user practice.
During the debate on the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Congress general secretary K C Venugopal questioned the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, while giving the examples of the Vaishno Devi Temple Act and Devaswom Board in Kerala which keep out non-Hindus under certain conditions. Waqf properties were as religious as temple trusts, Venugopal said.
Defending the new composition plans for Waqf boards, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said: “The Opposition is spreading the misconception that this Bill is an interference in the religious activities of Muslims and the property donated by them… The government does not want to interfere in the religious activities of Muslim brothers and the trusts associated with their donations… No non-Islamic member will get a place in the Waqf board’s work related to religious donations. Work of non-Muslim members, appointed on the Waqf board or its premises, will not be related to religious activities.”
However, he said, “… it will definitely have to be seen whether the property of Waqf is being maintained properly or not”.
Significantly, during the hearing on the matter in the apex court, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna raised this issue, saying: “Are you suggesting that minorities, including Muslims, should also be included in boards managing Hindu religious institutions? Please state that openly.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s suggestion that even the Bench should not be hearing the case by that logic attracted a sharp response from the Court, with the CJI saying the Bench lost its religion the moment it sat in judgment.
On Waqf-by-user, Congress MP Naseer Hussain said in the Rajya Sabha, “India is an ancient country… This is not just about masjids, but temples, gurudwaras, churches… If you ask about documents for 400-, 500-, 600-year-old buildings, where will people get them from? The proof is that communities believe that those properties exist even today and they are in long usage.”
During the hearing on the matter, CJI Khanna acknowledged the difficulty about presenting documents regarding pre-colonial buildings, and said that while there might be misuse of some Waqf-by-user properties, there were genuine ones too. “Now the fact of the matter is, before the British came, we did not have any registration of property… Many of the masjids may have been constructed in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th centuries. To require them to produce a registered sale deed will be impossible,” the CJI said.
The Solicitor General argued that “nothing prevented them (the Waqf users) from going and getting (properties) registered after 1923”. “It was mandatory.”
The Court observed further that the Act had good as well as questionable provisions, and it did not wish to stay it entirely. Mehta then agreed on the government’s behalf to pause appointments to boards and any denotification of Waqf-by-user till the Court heard the matter next.
