New Delhi: As the Joint Committee of Parliament finalized its report on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024, several Opposition members voiced strong objections, alleging that the proposed changes weaken Muslim rights and disrupt the governance of Waqf properties. Their dissent notes, which outline concerns over procedural irregularities and a perceived political motive behind the Bill, will be included in the report set to be presented in the upcoming Budget session of Parliament.
Strong Opposition from Congress, AIMIM, TMC, DMK
Among the most vocal opponents is AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who has accused the NDA government of using the Bill to erode Waqf institutions. In his dissent note, Owaisi called for the removal of all 44 amendments introduced by the government, arguing that they threaten justice, equality, and constitutional values. He particularly objected to the deletion of Section 107 of the Waqf Act (1995), which currently prevents individuals from acquiring Waqf property through adverse possession. Owaisi warned that removing this safeguard could allow illegal occupants to claim ownership over Waqf lands simply by possessing them for 12 years.
He also raised concerns over the involvement of organizations like Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in the panel’s proceedings, pointing out that these groups advocate for the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra.
Several Congress MPs, including Syed Naseer Hussain, Dr. Mohammad Jawed, and Imran Masood, submitted a joint dissent note, questioning the transparency of the panel’s proceedings. They argued that the Bill is politically motivated rather than being a genuine attempt to improve Waqf property management. According to them, the proposed changes could result in increased litigation, encroachments, and loss of autonomy over Waqf institutions.
The Trinamool Congress (TMC) representatives, Kalyan Banerjee and Nadimul Haque, also flagged concerns about procedural lapses. They claimed that minutes of key meetings were not shared with Opposition members and that their objections were deliberately left out of the official record.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leaders A Raja and M M Abdulla condemned the Bill as unconstitutional and warned that it could damage the country’s secular fabric. They emphasized that Waqf properties are a fundamental part of India’s pluralistic heritage and should not be tampered with under political pressure.
Panel Adopts Report Despite Dissent, BJP-backed Amendments Approved
Despite these strong objections, the Joint Committee voted 15-11 in favor of adopting its final report. The panel accepted 14 amendments suggested by BJP members and NDA allies while rejecting all 44 amendments proposed by the Opposition.
Among the notable absentees from the voting process were:
Gaurav Gogoi (Congress)
Dileshwar Kamait (JD-U)
Veerendra Heggade (nominated)
Suresh Mhatre (NCP-SP)
V Vijaysai Reddy (YSRCP, resigned)
With the report now finalized, the Bill is set to be introduced in Parliament, where a fierce debate is expected. The Opposition has vowed to challenge the amendments, arguing that they undermine the rights of millions of Muslims who rely on Waqf institutions for religious, social, and educational support.
Key Points of Contention in the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024
1. Deletion of Section 107: If removed, individuals who have unlawfully occupied Waqf properties for 12 years could claim ownership under the Limitation Act (1963).
2. Alleged Political Agenda: Opposition parties argue that the Bill is being pushed without genuine consultation and is designed to weaken Waqf governance.
3. Concerns Over Meeting Procedures: Opposition members claim they were denied access to meeting minutes and that their objections were not recorded.
4. Potential for Encroachment and Litigation: Critics warn that the amendments could make Waqf properties vulnerable to land grabs and prolonged legal battles.
As the Budget session approaches, the fate of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill will depend on whether the government can counter Opposition arguments and push the Bill through. However, with tensions rising and legal experts weighing in, the issue is likely to remain a major flashpoint in the coming weeks.
