New Delhi: The parliamentary committee scrutinising the Waqf bill is set to propose that existing “Waqf by user” properties will remain so if not in dispute or are government facilities but they must be registered before the new law takes effect, providing little relief to Waqf bodies in their unverified title claims.
Opposition MPs on Monday proposed amendments in all 44 clauses of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, seeking to mostly restore the provisions of the current Act, and claimed that the law proposed by the committee in its report would maintain the Bill’s “draconian” character and the bid to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims.
While the accepted amendments make some concessions to Muslim bodies criticising the Bill, including leaving it to Waqf boards to decide on welfare measures for widows and orphans, among others, instead of mandating it by law, a few of them may further irk the critics.
The meeting of the joint parliamentary committee headed by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal was again marked by noisy protests by opposition members, who accused him of “subverting” democratic process.
The panel is set to adopt its report on Wednesday with MPs of opposition parties such as the Congress, TMC, DMK and the AIMIM expected to give their dissent, sources said.
The committee will now meet for one last time, likely on Wednesday, the timing for which was notified on Monday.
All 32 amendments proposed by BJP MPs and their allies from the TDP and the JD(U) were accepted. Opposition MPs put forward more than 500 amendments at Monday’s meeting.
With Parliament’s Budget Session set to begin on January 31, the ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance can get the Bill passed in the first half of the session as it enjoys a majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, they added.
Among the amendments that may draw further objection from Muslim groups and opposition parties is that a Waqf board can now have even four non-Muslim members instead of two.
One of the changes passed by the panel said “two of total members of the Board appointed under this subsection, excluding ex-officio members, shall be non-Muslim”, the sources said.
The phrase “excluding ex-officio members” did not feature in the Bill.
While the Bill states that only a person practising Islam for at least five years may declare a Waqf, which refers to properties dedicated exclusively for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law, an approved amendment adds that such a person should be showing or demonstrating that he or she is practising the religion for five years, according to the sources.
DMK MP A Raja alleged that the committee’s proceedings were reduced to a “mockery” and that the “report is already ready by this time.”
“The DMK, myself, will move the Supreme Court to strike down the new law after it receives Parliament’s nod,” he said.
Pal, however, rebutted the charges, and said the panel considered all the amendments in a democratic way. The view of the majority prevailed, he said, adding that the accepted amendments would make the proposed law better and more effective.
He noted that the government was bound to accept the changes made by the committee.
Among the other amendments supported by the BJP and its allies and adopted by the committee with 16-10 votes in favour is to do away with vesting any inquiry into disputes over a government property with the district collector concerned, the sources said.
The accepted amendment proposed by BJP MP Brij Lal said that the “state government may by notification designate an officer above the rank of collector” to carry out an inquiry, as per law.
Several Muslim bodies had objected to the authority given to the collector, noting that he was also the head of revenue records, and any inquiry by him might not be impartial as he would go by his own office’s claim.
While the Bill removes the concept of “Waqf by user”, where properties could be deemed as Waqf-based solely on their long use for religious purposes, one amendment moved by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and accepted by the panel made some allowances for such existing facilities.
“Waqf by user” will remain as Waqf properties, except when these are in dispute or are government facilities, it said.
However, the amendment also makes it clear that such existing properties must be registered before the new law comes into force, the sources said.
A large number of tenants, a big chunk of them non-Muslims, living or running shops on properties claimed by the Waqf will be relieved as these assets mostly carry no clear title.
A source said it would benefit, as the Bill envisaged, hundreds of shopkeepers operating in places such as old Delhi from properties left behind by Muslims who left for Pakistan after Partition, and claimed by Waqf.
An amendment proposed by BJP MP Sanjay Jaiswal and accepted by the committee seeks inclusion of one person having knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence as a member of such tribunals, the sources said.
Hitting out at Pal, TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee claimed, “Everything was pre-decided. We were not allowed to say anything. No rules and procedures were followed. We wanted to discuss the amendments clause by clause but were not allowed.”
“The chairperson moved the amendments and then declared them without listening to our points. This is a bad day for democracy,” he added.
In total, hundreds of amendments were proposed by the committee members. The amendments were consolidated and linked to the clauses they referred to before the panel took them up.
Opposition MPs say, the process was undemocratic
Opposition members of the joint committee of Parliament examining the Waqf bill on Monday claimed the Bill’s “draconian” character and bid to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims would remain despite examination by the panel.
The opposition members, whose proposed amendments to the Bill during the committee’s meeting on Monday were rejected, also accused panel chair Jagdambika Pal of being “undemocratic” in the committee’s functioning and alleged he had enabled the Union government to add a saffron colour to this secular nation by using its majority in Parliament.
DMK MP A Raja alleged that the committee’s proceedings were reduced to a “mockery” and that the “report is already ready by this time.”
“The DMK, myself, will move the Supreme Court to strike down the new law after it receives Parliament’s nod,” he said.
Pal, however, rebutted the charges, and said the panel considered all the amendments in a democratic way. The view of the majority prevailed.
“Opposition MPs on Monday proposed amendments in all 44 clauses of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, seeking to mostly restore the provisions of the current Act,” the panel’s opposition members said in a joint statement and claimed that the law proposed by the committee in its report would maintain the Bill’s “draconian” character and the bid to interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims.
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla constituted the committee on August 9.
“As the committee has arrived at closure part of the deliberation, we, the members of the opposition, registered our protest then and there — both in the nature of conducting the proceedings by the chairman as well as the gross and serious deviations from the rules and procedures… We have already brought on such ignominious incidents to the speaker and the public,” the opposition members said in the statement.
The committee’s opposition members who signed the joint statement are A Raja, Kalyan Banerjee, Gaurav Gogoi, Asaduddin Owaisi, Naseer Hussain, Mohibullah, Imran Masood, M M Abdulla, Mod Jawed, Arvind Sawant and Md Nadimul Haque.
“Today, in spite of our protest, clause-by-clause considerations could not be held without those documents or depositions, as promised by the chairman, which will be a grave departure from the established rules. Ignoring our claims, the chairman himself called the names of the mover of the amendments (given by us) and he himself moved the amendments on our behalf and conducted the head counts on his own desire,” they said.
“He (Pal) announced the rejection of our amendments, thereby our sincere efforts to protect the constitutional assurances given to the minorities are being defeated,” they added.
The chairman’s awkward and solo act for all stakeholders of Monday’s sitting made him out as a painter to enable the Union government to give a saffron colour to the secular nation by using its brute majority in the Parliament, they alleged.
“We, the members of the opposition, appeal to the people of India who stand for the constitutional values to come forward to preserve the labour and conviction put by our forefathers Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Vallabhbhai Patel and others in the national building process with secular credentials and to protect the rights of minorities ensuring the social harmony of this sub-continent,” they also said.
In addition, the opposition members said they highlighted a few “wilful and wanton disregard” by the chairman in sharing the details of deliberations.
During the proceedings, 95 per cent of the stakeholders deposed against the Bill and the remaining 5 per cent appeared before the committee under the communal entity or umbrella, according to the joint statement.
They also claimed that minutes of the sittings held in Delhi and other places were not supplied to the members and members were stopped from placing their views on the amendments.
“No discussion on clause by clause was permitted by the chairman, which is the essential element in the process,” they claimed.
They also said that after the joint committee’s tour of Patna, Kolkata and Lucknow to hear the views of stakeholders of the respective states and, having heard them, the chairman directed those stakeholders to submit their views within 15 days.
“These documents are yet to reach the committee for perusal of the members. Meanwhile, another sitting of the committee was convened on (January) 24 and 25 with the agenda for clause-by-clause consideration. Suddenly, on the midnight of (January) 23, for reasons best known to the chairman, the agenda was changed as stakeholders for Jammu and Kashmir for their views and 25th sitting was cancelled without assigning any reason,” according to the statement.
“This issue was raised by us in the meeting held on (January) 24 for which we were suspended undemocratically,” the opposition members added.
“Knowing fully well, out of our earlier experiences that the subsequent meeting might be called in short notice by the chairman”, the opposition members said they had orally demanded on January 24 and subsequently in writing that depositions or documents of the stakeholders who appeared before the committee on tour had to be placed before the panel for perusal “so that we can ascertain our participation effectively and legally”.
