New Delhi, Sep 6 The fourth meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) reviewing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was on Friday marked by significant disruption. Representatives from Muslim organisations raised strong objections to the bill, questioning its necessity and provisions. Opposition MPs also voiced criticism, disputing the presentation given by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) during the meeting.
During the meeting held in the Parliament complex on Friday, ASI officials presented their findings. However, opposition MPs challenged the accuracy of the data presented.
According to sources, ASI officials claimed that there were disputes with the Waqf Board over 132 properties nationwide. AAP MP Sanjay Singh immediately contested the figure, arguing that ASI actually "controls 172 Waqf properties in Delhi alone". The disagreement led to heated exchanges between the ruling party and opposition MPs. In addition to this, several BJP MPs also opposed the views of an official regarding the rights of the Waqf Board.
Sources indicate that representatives from the Zakat Foundation of India and the Telangana Waqf Board also expressed strong opposition to the bill during the meeting. They criticised several provisions, such as including non-Muslims in the Waqf Board, granting excessive powers to collectors, removing the "Waqf by users" provision, and requiring a five-year practice period for Muslims donating property to the Waqf. The Muslim organisations questioned both the necessity of the bill and the government's intentions behind it.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 8. After the introduction, Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju assured the House that the government is committed to a comprehensive review of the bill by Parliament.
According to information, the JPC reviewing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill has received approximately eight lakh petitions from institutions and the public. The committee held its third meeting on Thursday, where officials from the Ministries of Urban Affairs, Road Transport, and Railways presented their assessments of the bill's implications.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor