All 44 amendments proposed by the Opposition were aimed at opposing modifications to the Waqf Act of 2013, including requests for extended timeframes for property registration and the appointment of senior officials as arbiters.
The Joint Committee of Parliament (JCP) reviewing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has approved significant changes to the legislation. These include extending the six months for registering Waqf properties online, designating a state government official instead of the district collector as the decision-maker on whether a property is classified as Waqf or government land, and ensuring that one member of the Waqf tribunal possesses expertise in Muslim law and jurisprudence.
While the JCP accepted 14 amendments from BJP MPs and their allies, it rejected all 44 amendments suggested by the Opposition. Reports indicate that these Opposition amendments were specifically against the planned changes to the Waqf Act.
Following the meeting, the Opposition issued a joint statement expressing concerns about what they perceive as autocratic behavior from the committee’s chairman, who they believe is acting under pressure from the Union Government. They criticized the chairman’s conduct during discussions, likening him to an artist attempting to paint a biased picture of governance.
The next JCP meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, when members will consider and adopt the draft report on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
Telugu Desam Party (TDP) MP Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu is reported to have proposed four amendments to the Bill, including replacing the Collector in dispute resolution with a more senior officer. This change aims to elevate the process from a district level to a state level.
The 2024 Bill states that any government property identified or declared as Waqf property, whether before or after this Act takes effect, will not be recognized as Waqf property. It suggests that disputes will be resolved by a designated officer rather than through a Waqf tribunal. Devarayalu’s proposal seeks to appoint a “designated officer” with higher authority than a Collector to make necessary adjustments in revenue records if properties are determined to be government-owned rather than Waqf properties.
JD(U)’s Dileshwar Kamait has proposed extending the six-month registration window for Waqf properties on government databases upon request from a mutawali (caretaker of a Waqf property), allowing for an appropriate timeframe as deemed necessary. Additionally, an amendment from BJP’s Dr. Radha Mohan Das Agrawal has been accepted, ensuring that no legal action can be taken if the registration timeline is extended.
BJP MP Abhijit Gangopadhyay has suggested two amendments related to Clause 11 of the Waqf Bill, which alters the composition of Waqf Boards. The amendment now specifies that any state government official serving on the Waqf Board must be at least at the Joint Secretary level and responsible for Waqf matters.
Shiv Sena’s Naresh Mhaske has proposed limiting annual contributions paid to Waqf Boards by mutawallis to a maximum amount set by the Central Government. The amendment Bill initially sought to increase this contribution from 5% to 7%.
BJP Rajya Sabha member Gulam Ali has also put forward amendments requiring that at least one member of the Waqf tribunal possess knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence. The original proposal included having either a sitting or retired district judge as chairperson alongside a Joint Secretary-level officer from the state government.
After Monday’s JCP meeting, committee chairperson Jagdambika Pal stated that the approved amendments would enhance the Bill and fulfill governmental objectives aimed at benefiting poor and Pasmanda Muslims.
Regarding the rejection of Opposition amendments, Pal remarked that all proposals were thoroughly considered during clause-by-clause discussions. She noted that if voting revealed 16 members opposed an amendment while only 10 supported it, rejection was expected in any democratic setting.
Opposition MPs have called for further discussions on the Bill and labeled recent proceedings as “a farce.” Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain mentioned that they walked out after voting due to dissatisfaction with how discussions were handled.
In their joint statement, Opposition members expressed their protest against how proceedings were conducted by Pal and highlighted significant deviations from established rules and procedures.
They pointed out that there was a lack of transparency regarding details shared during committee deliberations and stated that minutes from meetings held in different locations were not provided to members.
The statement also claimed that during discussions, an overwhelming majority of stakeholders opposed the Bill while only a small fraction appeared before the committee under what they described as communal affiliations.
