The government on Thursday agreed to refer the Waqf Act, 1995 Amendment Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) after a heated debate in the Lok Sabha during which the Opposition alleged that the Bill was against the Constitution’s basic structure, encroached on fundamental rights and would harm the country’s secular image.

Speaker Om Birla assured that he would talk to all political parties to constitute a JPC, after Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju proposed that the government was ready for discussion on the Bill in any committee or forum. The Bill was introduced after about two and a half hours discussion.

Advertisement

“We are open-minded. Our intentions are clean,” he said, and proposed that a JPC be formed to study the Bill. Mr Rijiju told the Opposition that the Bill only sought to legislate changes which were proposed by committees formed by the Congress governments for proper management of vast Waqf properties.

The amendment Bill seeks to rename the Waqf Act, 1995 as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995. The Minister introduced a related Bill to repeal the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 also.

The Minister said the House was competent to legislate on the issue as the subject came under the Concurrent List of the Constitution under Entries 10 and 28. He said Sachar and Rahman committees had made recommendations on the subject.

There were lakhs of Waqf properties which could generate more income for the welfare of the community only, he said. There would be faster resolution of disputes. Most people want the new law for better administration of the Waqf properties, he said.

The Opposition across several parties did not want the Bill introduced at all, stating that it would not stand judicial scrutiny, and simply interfered with religious freedom. Members from the Treasury Benches pointed out that the Bill did not touch mosques at all; the Waqf properties came under a law which required amendment.

Opposing the Bill, K C Venugopal (Congress) said the Bill was draconian and an attack on the fundamental rights. Followers of all religions had freedom to manage their affairs. The Bill proposed that non-Muslims could be on the Waqf management. Could anyone imagine non-Hindus on the management of Ayodhya or Guruvayur temples.

He said Hindus respected all religions. The ruling BJP had perhaps brought the Bill for advantage during the coming Haryana and Maharashtra Assembly elections. The Bill was also against the federal structure as all it would call for State data to a Central portal, he said.

Mohibbullah Nadim (Samajwadi Party) said Hindu temples had only Hindus on their management and all Sikh Gurdwaras had only Sikhs on their management. How could then non-Muslims be on the administration of Waqf properties. He said the goodwill of the country would suffer if such a law was passed.

Sudip Bandyopadhyay (Trinamul Congress) said the Bill violates Article 14 of the Constitution on freedom of religion. It would also violate the federal law as land comes under States as part of the Seventh Schedule.

Ms K Kanimozhi (DMK) said the members of Parliament have taken oath of the Constitution and are now faced with a Bill which goes against the Constitution. Articles 25 and Articles 26 of the Constitution are violated. The Bill is against the Constitution, federal structure and against minorities.

She said the Bill violated Article 14 of the Constitution on equality before law. Section 40 of the Bill was anti-Muslims and anti-minorities.

Panchayati Raj Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh said the Bill did not deal with mosques but other properties. The government’s aim was just to bring transparency. Srikant Eknath Shinde (Shiv Sena) said the only objective of the Bill was to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Waqf boards. Women too would get a role in the Waqf management, he said.

Supriya Sule (NCP-Sharad Pawar) said the government should withdraw the Bill as no consultations were done with the concerned community. She said the minorities should be protected. Powers being given to Collectors was a worrisome affair.

E T Mohammed Basheer (IUML) opposed the Bill saying it clearly violated Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution. The Bill was ill-motivated. The government is trying to keep Muslims and Hindus in water-tight compartments.

Kalyan Banerjee (Trinamul Congress) said he opposed the Bill as it was against the competence of the House. Land subject was under civil courts. The law would target Muslims. The last election had given the ruling party a message that the country was against religious domination by a community.

K Radhakrishnan (CPI-M) said there was no consultation with Muslims or other organisations. The Waqf Boards would become nominated boards. Either the Bill be withdrawn or sent to a Standing Committee.

N K Premachandran (RSP) said the Waqf boards did charitable activities. The Bill violated various rights and the House did not have competence to legislate on the issue. The Bill allows Hindus to join the Waqf boards but not donate to the boards.

Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) said several Articles of the Constitution would be violated by the Bill, and the basic structure of the Constitution would suffer. G M Harish (Balayogi) (Telugu Desam) said there was need for regulation but his party would not oppose it the Bill was sent to a Committee.