The opposition leaders on Wednesday objected to the proposed amendment of the ‘waqf by user’ clause in the Waqf Amendment Bill, claiming that the provision has existed since a long establishment.
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has criticized the last-minute addition of a proviso to the clause omitting the concept of ‘waqf by user’ in a recent report, calling it “wholly unhelpful.” In a dissent note, Owaisi argued that the proviso would only be applicable in cases where the property is not in dispute. However, in instances where a dispute arises, the principle of ‘waqf by user’ would still be subjected to legal scrutiny, rendering the proviso ineffective.
Owaisi’s objection underscores concerns that the amendment could weaken protections for waqf properties, particularly those established through long-standing community usage. The issue is expected to spark further debate among lawmakers and religious bodies.
To bring relief to the thoughts of people who think that the new changes to the Waqf law will bring change in the existing Waqf properties, the parliamentary panel has stated that no old cases will be reopened for the rechecking of properties being Waqf or not. However, this takes place only if the property is not in any dispute or belongs to the government.
“Any bad-faith actor can institute a litigation over any part of the properties belonging to the ‘waqf by user’ and consequently prevent it from seeking any protection under the amended Act,” Congress member Gaurav Gogoi said in his dissent note.
The deputy leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha said that the bill permits the government panel to intrude into the operation, handle and supervise the Waqf or Waqf properties within the country.
“… this has a detrimental impact on the community as well as the institution of the autonomy, which are necessary to administer the institution,” said Gogoi.
DMK member A Raja mentions that the provision of ‘waqf by user’ has been present from the time of Prophet Muhammad. Moreover, he states that any amendment within the same would be a violation of the fundamental rights of the Muslim Community.
Shiv Sena member Arvind Sawant opposed the decision to allow non-muslims to be a part of the Waqf Board.
“Nomination of such non-related members will create chaos as tomorrow the other communities may demand parity in all endowments,” Sawant said in his dissent note to the report.
Sawant pointed out that, in the case of Hindu fundraisings, the rules clearly state that only Hindus can be members and hold official positions. He states that the same principle should apply to the Waqf Board, perhaps only Muslims should be allowed to be its members.
“The Waqf Act was made to save and safeguard the waqf properties. However, the proposed amendments to the Waqf Act are going to do the exact opposite. Instead of saving the waqf properties, they will open new ways and avenues to further encroach upon and usurp the waqf properties,” he said.
TMC members Kalyan Banerjee and Nadimul Haque opposed the amendment stating that if any government property has been identified as Waqf property, whether before or after the law has come into effect, it will not be considered waqf property.
Moreover, the proposed change also states if there is any dispute over whether a property belongs to the government, the matter will be decided by an officer above the rank of collector as advised by the state government, for arbitration.
“The said amendment hits the basic tenants of the property laws. The government is not meant to create its property by taking recourse in an unauthorised manner. When the government acts as a trespasser, such unauthorised acts cannot be legalised by the proposed amendment,” the TMC leaders claimed.
Vijay Sai Reddy, a YSRCP member presented his dissent note before resigning from the Rajya Sabha on January 25.
