New Delhi: Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday defended the Waqf Act (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in the Lok Sabha, affirming that it “does not interfere” with the freedom of religious bodies.
Amid disruptions from the Opposition, Rijiju clarified, “All the provisions in this Bill, from Article 25 to 30, do not interfere with the freedom of any religion, nor do they violate any Article.”
Citing a topo court ruling, Rijiju said, “In the Brahmachari vs. State of West Bengal case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Waqf Board doesn’t fall under the purview of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.”
Emphasising that the Bill aims to extend rights to the marginalised groups within the Muslim community, Rijiju said, “Forget about taking away the rights, this Bill has been brought to give rights to those who were deprived of them, including women, children, and other backward and suppressed Muslim classes.”
Highlighting the historical context, the Union Minister noted, “This is not the first time that the Waqf Act (Amendment) Bill has been introduced. It has happened many times before since Independence. This amendment aims to accomplish what the Congress could never do.”
Rijiju referenced the 1976 Waqf Enquiry Report, which recommended necessary reforms in the management of Waqf properties, including disciplining trustees, establishing a tribunal system, and maintaining proper audits and accounts.
He also pointed out the recommendations by the committees formed under the Congress rule.
“A high-level committee under Justice Rajender Sachar, formed on March 9, 2005, during the UPA rule, focused specifically on the welfare of Muslims. This Bill is based on the Sachar Committee report,” he said.
The Sachar Committee suggested broadening the Waqf Board to include more representation, including two women in both central and state Waqf councils.
Additionally, Rijiju mentioned the Joint Parliamentary Committee under K. Rehman Khan (Cabinet Minister in the UPA government), which highlighted issues such as insufficient infrastructure and manpower, improper fund usage, and the need to remove the provision for trustees.
“The committee also recommended digitising the entire board, centralising databases, and maintaining revenue records of all Waqf properties,” he said.
Amid the opposition’s slogans, Rijiju sarcastically remarked, “Everyone is convinced but still opposing the Bill due to political pressure.”
The Parliamentary Affairs Minister also claimed that many MPs privately supported the Bill but felt “pressured” by their parties.
“We are not saying that people of different religions should be part of the Waqf Board. We are saying that an MP should be a member of the board. The MP can be a Hindu or Christian, we can’t do anything about it. If an MP is added to the Waqf Board because he/she is a member of the Parliament, should we change his/her religion,” he asked.
The session witnessed significant uproar as the opposition MPs voiced their disapproval of the Bill, leading to disruptions in the House proceedings.
