New Delhi: Amid Opposition’s charges of being “dictatorial” and “undemocratic”, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) scrutinising the Waqf Amendment Bill adopted all 14 changes proposed by the ruling BJP-led NDA members Monday, including the one to appoint an officer more senior than a district collector as an arbiter responsible for the survey of waqf properties. All 44 amendments moved by opposition members were rejected by the JPC, a member present in the meeting told ThePrint.
The original bill tabled by the Narendra Modi government last August proposed to make the district collector an arbiter, which led to the Opposition charging the government with unleashing a “collector raj”.
The JPC has 31 members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, of which 16 are from NDA including 12 from the BJP, 13 from opposition parties, one from YSR Congress Party and a nominated member.
Led by senior BJP leader Jagdambika Pal, the JPC—while adopting the 14 amendments moved by the treasury benches—retained a majority of the 44 amendments proposed by the Modi government to the Waqf Act last August. This includes keeping the provision to have non-Muslims in the waqf boards and the Central Waqf Committee.
“However, the JPC has adopted the proposal moved by the BJP members that this provision will not be implemented with retrospective effect… It will be prospective,” a member present in Monday’s meeting told ThePrint.
The member did not want to be named as JPC proceedings are confidential.
Briefing reporters after the meeting, JPC chairperson Jagdambika Pal said that a total of 44 amendments were discussed. “After detailed discussions over the course of six months, we sought amendments from all members. This was our final meeting… So, 14 amendments have been accepted by the committee on the basis of a majority,” he said.
Pal said opposition members had also suggested amendments. “We moved each and every (one) of those amendments and it was put to vote but there were 10 votes supporting theirs and 16 votes opposing it.”
The government’s proposal that only those who have been “practising Islam for at least five years” can give away properties for waqf has also been retained with a clause that it would not be implemented retrospectively.
The JPC has also kept the proposal to make the Limitation Act of 1963 applicable to waqf properties but with prospective effect. This, if accepted, will prevent waqf boards from seeking legal recourse to remove alleged encroachers, who have occupied waqf properties for 12 years or more.
The Modi government had tabled the controversial Bill last August to amend the Waqf Act of 1995, proposing 44 amendments to the law for “effective management” of waqf properties and to “enhance efficiency” of waqf administration. It was referred to the JPC soon after.
Opposition members present in the meeting said their amendments were rejected without discussion. “We had moved amendments seeking to delete all the 44 changes proposed to the Waqf Act last August,” an opposition MP present in the meeting told ThePrint on condition of anonymity.
The MP added, “They did not discuss the amendments moved by the Opposition and directly brought them to vote. This is undemocratic and dictatorial. The JPC chairman Jagdambika Pal bulldozed the bill, adapting all the amendments proposed by the treasury benches.”
JPC to submit report in budget session
A second opposition MP said the JPC was likely to submit its report to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla two days before the budget session begins on 31 January. Opposition members Monday questioned this “hurry”.
“Why is the report being bulldozed through like this without discussing with opposition members? Is it because of the Delhi assembly elections on 5 February?” asked another opposition MP who attended the meeting.
Opposition members have locked horns with the treasury bench, including JPC chairman Jagdambika Pal, since the proceedings started last year. On Friday, 10 opposition MPs were suspended for a day after the latter protested the alleged changes in the schedule of the meeting without consulting them.
“Since day one, the JPC chairman has been functioning in a partisan way. The opposition members were not consulted about anything… Whatever amendments we moved, were rejected. There was a lot of backlash from stakeholders too, who were consulted,” a third opposition member said.
Currently, waqf boards control 8.72 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres across India, with an estimated value of Rs 1.2 lakh crore. At the same time, there are, according to government sources, around 40,951 waqf-related cases pending in waqf tribunals.
Introducing the Bill in Lok Sabha on 8 August 2024, Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had said amendments to the Waqf Act were necessitated as the government had received several complaints about the misuse of its properties. He cited the example of the Surat Municipal Corporation headquarters. The entire property was declared as waqf property, he said.
“In Karnataka, in 2012, a report of the Karnataka Minorities Commission said the Karnataka Waqf Board converted 29,000 acres to commercial land. Can you do it? Everybody knows that waqf properties are used for religious, charitable and pious purposes,” he had said.
Rijiju said the Bill was brought to give justice to ordinary Muslims. He claimed that many leaders in the Opposition had privately told him that state waqf boards had turned into a mafia. “I won’t take their names and destroy their political careers,” he added.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also Read: Centre asks IIT Delhi to draw up roadmap to effectively manage waqf properties, boards in 22 states
It seems very strange that only the changes proposed by one party were accepted by the JPC. Surely every pary has good ideas that can make the bill more meaningful. The process shows a poor and partisan mindsent at the outset. Perhaps our lawmakers should realize that they are not each others enemies. Even given the poor behaviour of the members from opposition, surely there were good ideas from that end too. Saying that a vote was taken on each idea rings hollow if it is predetmined how one should vote. It thus appears that this exercise was more agenda driven and not for the overall good of the society. This is sad news.