Opposition, including Shiv Sena, calls Waqf Amendment a violation of Muslim rights

The opposition members of Parliament, in their dissent, strongly objected to the Waqf Amendment Bill, particularly the proposed omission of the 'waqf by user' clause, which they argued has existed since time immemorial and represents the very principle of granting property as waqf.

They contended that this move would lead to excessive government interference in the administration of waqf properties and undermine the fundamental rights of the Muslim community.

The parliamentary panel examining the bill attempted to address concerns by recommending that no existing waqf properties would face scrutiny under the amended law on a retrospective basis, except in cases where the property is disputed or government-owned, The Siasat Daily reported.

However, opposition members claimed the amendment would create opportunities for bad-faith litigants to challenge waqf properties, effectively nullifying protections offered under the revised legislation.

The dissent notes emphasised that the amendment would severely impact the autonomy and democratic governance of waqf institutions, with concerns raised about the replacement of elected waqf board members with government nominees.

Members also criticised the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards, describing it as inconsistent with the principles governing religious endowments and detrimental to the administration of waqf properties.

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi highlighted that the last-minute inclusion of a proviso allowing certain protections for "waqf by user" properties was inadequate, as it would not apply to disputed properties, which are often the subject of litigation.

Congress member Gaurav Gogoi added that the bill’s provisions would grant excessive control to the government, weakening the independence of waqf institutions and threatening the community's ability to manage its assets.

DMK leaders A Raja and Mohamed Abdulla described the bill as an attempt to alter the nature of waqf properties, asserting that the removal of the "waqf by user" clause violated constitutional rights and the historical foundations of waqf. They further criticised the nomination of non-Muslims to waqf boards, arguing that similar provisions do not exist for Hindu endowments, where management is restricted to members of the respective religious denomination.

Congress leaders Naseer Hussain, Imran Masood, and Mohammad Jawed criticised the lack of transparency in the legislative process, pointing out that key documents, including stakeholder submissions and ministry responses, were withheld from committee members. They also noted that no clause-by-clause discussion took place after consultations, undermining the panel's integrity.

Shiv Sena UBT member Arvind Sawant joined the opposition in condemning the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards, stating that such provisions could create demands for similar changes in other religious endowments. He warned that the proposed amendments would facilitate further encroachment on waqf properties rather than protecting them, as intended by the original Act.

Trinamool Congress members Kalyan Banerjee and Nadimul Haque expressed concerns about a clause stating that government property identified as waqf would no longer be recognised as waqf property. They argued that the amendment allowed the government to bypass property laws by designating properties as its own, potentially legalising unauthorised actions.

Despite the opposition's united front, the government has continued to push for the amendment, citing the need to address ambiguities in the existing Waqf Act. However, dissenting voices maintain that the proposed changes threaten the autonomy of waqf boards and infringe upon the constitutional rights of the Muslim community.