Waqf (Amendment) Bill Clears Rajya Sabha Hurdle Amid Heated Debate & Opposition Concerns

The Waqf(Amendment) Bill has cleared both Houses of Parliament after a high-voltage debate that saw sharp exchanges between the ruling and Opposition benches. Following its smooth passage in the Lok Sabha, where it was passed with 288 votes in favour and 232 against, the bill breezed through the Rajya Sabha with 128 votes supporting it and 95 opposing, just 24 hours later.

The legislation, which aims to amend the Waqf Act of 1995, now awaits presidential assent before it becomes law. However, its journey through Parliament has been anything but uncontroversial.

A Fractured Opposition

The bill's passage exposed cracks in the Opposition unity, particularly after Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal (BJD) allowed a “conscience vote” for its seven Rajya Sabha MPs, opting not to issue a whip. Senior BJD leader Sasmit Patra cited the sentiments of "different sections of the Minority communities" as a reason for this decision.

Government’s Stand

Opening the debate, Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju asserted that the bill is aimed at bringing transparency and ending corruption in the management of Waqf properties. He emphasized that the management, creation, and benefits of Waqf properties would remain exclusively with Muslims and clarified that the bill is not about religion but about property and its administration.

Rijiju stated that under the proposed amendments, proof of ownership would be required before declaring any property as Waqf. This change, he argued, addresses a loophole in the previous system where a mere claim by the Waqf Board automatically designated property as Waqf.

Union Minister Amit Shah and Rijiju also listed contentious properties previously designated as Waqf — including land in Delhi’s Lutyens’ zone, a 400-year-old Tamil Nadu temple, and even the old Parliament building — to underscore the need for reform.

Opposition Fire

The Opposition, led by Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Syed Naseer Hussain, vehemently opposed the bill. Hussain argued that the properties being questioned were historical Muslim sites like mosques, dargahs, and burial grounds handed over during British rule. He also refuted the government’s claim that courts had no jurisdiction under the earlier Act, pointing to ongoing cases in higher courts.

A heated moment came during an exchange between Hussain and Amit Shah over the scope of judicial recourse under the existing Waqf Act. Shah contended that the Congress-era law lacked provision for civil suits, restricting legal remedies.

Contentious Provisions

Among the most debated changes in the bill are:

• Mandatory inclusion of two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards.

• Eligibility criteria for donating property to Waqf, which now requires that individuals must have practiced Islam for at least five years.

• Government property claimed as Waqf will now be adjudicated by senior government officials instead of Waqf tribunals. In cases of dispute, a high-ranking government officer will have the final say.

These provisions have drawn widespread criticism, with AIMIM’s Imtiaz Jaleel questioning the logic behind appointing non-Muslims to a religious board. He asked if Muslims would be appointed to bodies governing the Tirupati temple or the Ram Temple Trust, echoing sentiments shared by Kharge.

Kharge also warned that pushing the bill through in its current form would sow seeds of future disputes. “This is not good for the country. You're going by the logic of ‘jiski laathi uski bhains’ (might is right),” he remarked.

What Lies Ahead

With parliamentary approval secured, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill now heads to the President for final assent. Once signed into law, it is expected to significantly alter how Waqf properties are managed, scrutinized, and donated in India.

While the government claims the bill is a necessary step to curb irregularities and ensure transparency, critics argue it undermines minority rights and sets a worrying precedent of state overreach into religious affairs.

Also Read: The Waqf (Amendment) Bill: A Political Battlefield