The 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill submitted its 914-page report to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on 30 January and the report is likely to be submitted in Parliament sometime in the week of 3 February. This is a precursor to the Bill being introduced for approval in the current Budget Session of Parliament.
When the bill was referred to the JPC in August 2024, Opposition members had raised serious objections to the conduct of the committee by its chairman, Jagdambika Pal (who is a BJP member). The chairman was accused of accepting all the amendments moved by the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) MPs and rejecting amendments moved by members from the Opposition.
He was also accused of suspending members of the JPC, going against all parliamentary conventions and rules.
Several Opposition MPs have now objected to the JPC chairperson arbitrarily redacting dissenting notes they had submitted, without bothering to even inform them.
The chairperson was on Monday, 3 February, quoted by the New Indian Express as saying that the dissenting notes were too long and had no relevance after their amendments had been rejected. He did not comment on allegations that the JPC failed to deliberate the Bill clause-by-clause and withheld important information from the members.
Instead, rather than facilitate a structured discussion, the chairman decided to put the amendments moved by the members to a quick vote without any deliberation.
“The JPC was already reduced to a farce, but now they’ve stooped even lower — censoring dissenting voices of Opposition MPs! What are they so scared of? Why this attempt to silence us?
“I am attaching the censored portions of my dissent note for the public to read. Let the truth be known!'' posted Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain on Saturday, 1 February, and attached a letter addressed to the JPC chairman by himself and two other Congress MPs, Mohammed Jawed and Imran Masood.
Hussain told the National Herald that he had submitted a 30-page dissenting note on all the 46 amendments in the proposed Bill.
“My basic stand was that India being a secular country, minorities have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The party also believes that there should be parity in the laws concerning governance and administration of religious properties of all religions,” he said.
Pointing to serious procedural lapses, Hussain claimed that essential documents such as stakeholders’ depositions, minutes of the JPC meetings and the ministry’s responses were withheld from members. “I had pointed out all these procedural lapses, which have now been redacted in the report,” he said.
In the letter written to Jagdambika Pal accessed by the National Herald, Hussain has reproduced the points of dissent raised by the members to the Bill clause by clause. Some of the key clauses to which the Opposition members objected were:
Creating a separate waqf for Aga Khani and Bohra Muslims: The members’ view is that since both Bohras and Aga Khanis are sub-sects within the Shia sect of the Muslim community and the Waqf Act, 1995, already explicitly recognises Shia waqfs, there is no justification for creating separate provisions for Aga Khani and Bohra waqfs.
The recognition of specific sub-sects within the broader Shia sect sets a precedent for further fragmentation, as there are several more sub-sects within the Shia and Sunni sects.
This uneven approach, that selectively addresses only certain sub-sects, also creates a discriminatory framework. Hence, this particular provision is both unwarranted and redundant.
Donors of a waqf property should have practised Islam for at least five years: The five-year restriction on Muslims being able to offer waqf is contrary to Islamic tenets, which do not impose temporal qualifications for such dedications as long as they serve the purposes recognised by Islam. This condition also contradicts the inclusivity affirmed in the 2013 Waqf Act Amendment and is inconsistent with various other religious endowment acts. The only essential requirement is that the donor must be the rightful owner of the property.
Designated officers will inquire into any government property identified or declared as waqf in case of a dispute: It is a welcome decision, the Opposition members note, that after serious objections by stakeholders, the MPs from the Treasury benches have partially agreed to transfer the power of investigation and arbitration from the district collector to the designated officer. However, the amendment still fails to address crucial aspects of this function — such as the qualifications or relevant experience required for a designated officer, especially in relation to the administration of waqf properties.
The Waqf Council will have two non-Muslims on the board: In several religious endowment laws — such as the Uttar Pradesh Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Section 3), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Section 10), Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Section 3(2)) and Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (Section 6) — it is mandated that key positions such as the chief executive officer or equivalent roles must be held by individuals professing the Hindu religion.
Denying a similar provision for waqf boards is discriminatory and undermines the religious character and autonomy of waqf institutions. In almost all similar Hindu religious contexts, only a person practising the Hindu faith can be a board member; then why the provision to include non-Muslims here? What gives Sanatanis special rights to arbitrate or speak on behalf of other religions?
Negating removal of a waqf board chairperson by a vote of no-confidence: The erasure of the clause that allowed the chairperson of a waqf board to be removed through a vote of no confidence takes away a democratic process that ensured accountability.
The proposed removal of this democratic element undermines representative governance, transparency and trust in the administration of waqf properties. Such a change subverts the principles of accountability, which are critical to the effective functioning of waqf boards. This amendment is regressive and should be reconsidered, the Opposition felt.
No real vision for a progressive social artefact?Hussain said the JPC had also lost a golden opportunity to give a new vision to the utilisation of waqf properties. According to him the JPC could have resolved the conflict faced by state governments over the redistribution of waqf lands under the Land Ceiling and Inams Abolition Acts.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that waqf land is “perpetual'', meaning once declared, it is dedicated to God and cannot be alienated or sold.
“The JPC could have resolved whether states should follow the Act or the court verdict, or settle the matter by offering some compensation to the affected party,” he maintained.
