Alina
Opposition Protests Waqf Amendment Meeting
Opposition Boycotts Waqf Amendment Bill Meeting
The Joint Parliamentary Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, October 14, 2024, on the Waqf Amendment Bill faced a serious setback when opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) boycotted the session. This move was prompted by allegations that the committee was not adhering to parliamentary rules and regulations, leading the opposition to protest the manner in which the meeting was conducted.
Opposition MPs claimed that the panel, under the leadership of senior BJP MP Jagdambika Pal, had become dysfunctional and accused it of undermining parliamentary principles. They expressed dissatisfaction with the way the discussions were being handled and decided to escalate the matter by formally requesting the removal of the committee chairman. Additionally, they submitted a request to the Lok Sabha Speaker, urging for a special meeting to address their grievances.
Concerns Over Unrelated Presentation
A major point of contention during the Waqf Amendment Bill meeting was the presentation by Anwar Manippadi, former Chairman of the Karnataka Minorities Commission and the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation. Opposition MPs claimed that his presentation was irrelevant to the bill under discussion.
According to the opposition, Manippadi used the platform to criticize the Karnataka state government and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, straying from the core subject of the Waqf Amendment Bill. This led opposition MPs, including Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant, to walk out in protest, stating that the meeting was being conducted in violation of parliamentary ethics.
“We boycotted because the committee is not functioning according to principles and norms. Ethically and in terms of parliamentary procedure, this is wrong,” said Sawant.
Despite the opposition’s walkout, the committee proceeded with its scheduled agenda, continuing discussions on the Waqf Amendment Bill.
Key Features of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024
The Waqf Amendment Bill proposes several critical changes to how Waqf properties are identified, registered, and managed in India. One of the primary provisions of the bill is the requirement that all Waqf properties must be registered with the district collector’s office for proper evaluation.
Registration of Waqf Properties
The bill mandates that any property identified or declared as a Waqf property, whether before or after the Act’s commencement, will not be considered a Waqf property until a formal assessment is conducted. This responsibility falls on the district collector, who will have the final authority to determine whether a property qualifies as Waqf land or government land.
Once the district collector makes a decision, they are required to update the revenue records and submit a report to the state government. Only after the report is submitted will the property be officially recognized as Waqf. Until then, the land remains under dispute.
Appeals and Legal Reforms
Another significant aspect of the Waqf Amendment Bill is the provision allowing disputes over Waqf properties to be appealed directly to high courts. This move aims to streamline the resolution of conflicts that may arise between the Waqf Board and property claimants, providing a legal avenue for challenging decisions made by the Waqf authorities.
The bill also seeks to eliminate a long-standing provision that permitted Waqf properties to be declared through oral agreements or declarations. This practice, grounded in Islamic law, has often led to disputes in cases where no formal documentation, such as a “waqfnama,” existed. Under the proposed amendments, properties without a valid waqfnama will be considered suspect or disputed until the district collector reaches a final decision.
Opposition’s Continued Concerns
The opposition’s boycott of the Waqf Amendment Bill meeting reflects broader concerns about the bill’s potential implications and the process by which it is being reviewed. While the bill introduces reforms aimed at ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the management of Waqf properties, opposition MPs argue that the parliamentary process must remain fair and impartial.
In their protest, opposition members emphasized that presenting unrelated political issues during the meeting undermined the integrity of the legislative process. Their demands for the removal of the committee chairman and a thorough review of the bill suggest that debates over the Waqf Amendment Bill are far from over.
Conclusion
The boycott of the Waqf Amendment Bill meeting by opposition MPs highlights ongoing tensions in the legislative process. With critical reforms proposed for the management of Waqf properties, it is essential that all parliamentary procedures are followed to ensure a fair and thorough review of the bill. Whether the opposition’s concerns will be addressed in future meetings remains to be seen, but the debate over the Waqf Amendment Bill is set to continue.
