NEW DELHI: Lashing out at the opposition for criticising the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, Union minority affairs minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday said the Waqf management was captured by some strong Muslim communities at the cost of minor groups like Bohras, Pasmandas, Ahmedias and Aghakhanis, and changes to the law would provide justice to them as well as to Muslim women and children.
The bill’s introduction in Lok Sabha was met with vociferous criticism from the opposition which termed it an attempt by BJP to create a polarising issue against Muslims with an eye on the coming Maharashtra and Haryana elections.
The Mussalman Waqf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, related to the Waqf bill for scrapping of the old Act, was also introduced.
Rijiju said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill did not seek to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims nor was it anti-Muslim as alleged by the opposition.
He said it was futuristic in its intent to rid the law of archaic provisions and for bringing the ‘statute of limitations’ into force, which would bar any person from being able to lay ancestral claim dating back 500 years to a property and getting it declared Waqf asset.
Congress’s K C Venugopal and Gaurav Gogoi, SP’s Akhilesh Yadav and Mohibullah Nadwi, DMK’s Kanimozhi, RSP’s N K Premachandran, AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, NCP’s Supriya Sule, Trinamool’s Sudip Bandyopadhyay and Kalyan Banerjee and Mian Altaf of NC among others said the bill violated Articles 25-26 of the Constitution and was BJP’s attempt to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims, besides being outside the legislative competence of the govt and Parliament.
They also warned that it would not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Rijiju gave a point-wise rebuttal to their arguments, stating that important changes suggested in the bill were as per the suggestions of Sachar Committee that was constituted and accepted by the former Congress govt.
Venugopal said the bill was unconstitutional and should not be allowed.
Allowing non-Muslims to be members of Waqf Boards was an attack on the Muslim religion and their faith, he said, adding that it was designed keeping in mind the forthcoming elections in Maharashtra and Haryana.
“This House doesn’t have the competence to amend this Act,” Asaduddin Owaisi said, adding that Waqf properties were not public properties.
Bandyopadhyay and Kanimozhi, too, called it violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. While Bandyopadhyay reminded the chair that land being a state subject, the bill was “unconstitutional, divisive and against federalism”, Kanimozhi said the bill was against Muslims and minorities.
Premachandran said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was intended to disempower Waqf Boards as it would be for the collector or the govt to certify whether a property was a Waqf property or not. “They are removing Section 104. Then, removing Section 40 means that there is no need for Waqf Boards. Waqf Boards become totally powerless. It means that they are dismantling the system,” the RSP functionary added.
The bill’s introduction in Lok Sabha was met with vociferous criticism from the opposition which termed it an attempt by BJP to create a polarising issue against Muslims with an eye on the coming Maharashtra and Haryana elections.
The Mussalman Waqf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, related to the Waqf bill for scrapping of the old Act, was also introduced.
Rijiju said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill did not seek to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims nor was it anti-Muslim as alleged by the opposition.
He said it was futuristic in its intent to rid the law of archaic provisions and for bringing the ‘statute of limitations’ into force, which would bar any person from being able to lay ancestral claim dating back 500 years to a property and getting it declared Waqf asset.
Congress’s K C Venugopal and Gaurav Gogoi, SP’s Akhilesh Yadav and Mohibullah Nadwi, DMK’s Kanimozhi, RSP’s N K Premachandran, AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, NCP’s Supriya Sule, Trinamool’s Sudip Bandyopadhyay and Kalyan Banerjee and Mian Altaf of NC among others said the bill violated Articles 25-26 of the Constitution and was BJP’s attempt to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims, besides being outside the legislative competence of the govt and Parliament.
They also warned that it would not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Rijiju gave a point-wise rebuttal to their arguments, stating that important changes suggested in the bill were as per the suggestions of Sachar Committee that was constituted and accepted by the former Congress govt.
Venugopal said the bill was unconstitutional and should not be allowed.
Allowing non-Muslims to be members of Waqf Boards was an attack on the Muslim religion and their faith, he said, adding that it was designed keeping in mind the forthcoming elections in Maharashtra and Haryana.
“This House doesn’t have the competence to amend this Act,” Asaduddin Owaisi said, adding that Waqf properties were not public properties.
Bandyopadhyay and Kanimozhi, too, called it violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. While Bandyopadhyay reminded the chair that land being a state subject, the bill was “unconstitutional, divisive and against federalism”, Kanimozhi said the bill was against Muslims and minorities.
Premachandran said the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was intended to disempower Waqf Boards as it would be for the collector or the govt to certify whether a property was a Waqf property or not. “They are removing Section 104. Then, removing Section 40 means that there is no need for Waqf Boards. Waqf Boards become totally powerless. It means that they are dismantling the system,” the RSP functionary added.
