Waqf Amendment Bill Sparks Controversy in Rajya Sabha: Kharge Urges Government to Withdraw the Bill

Opposition Raises Alarm Over Potential Disputes, Calls for Reconsideration

New Delhi – The Waqf Amendment Bill has triggered a heated debate in the Rajya Sabha, with Leader of Opposition (LoP) and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge strongly opposing the legislation. Addressing the House, Kharge warned that the bill could lead to disputes across the country and urged the government to withdraw it.

During the debate, Kharge accused the government of sowing seeds of discord by introducing amendments that, according to him, go against the interests of Muslims and the constitutional principles of secularism and minority rights.

“What you are doing is not good. This will lead to disputes in the country. You are sowing seeds for disputes… I appeal to the Home Minister to withdraw this. Don’t make this a prestige issue. What is the harm in rectifying the errors?… Amendments were made to the Constitution of the country. So, it is correct to withdraw it. This is not good for Muslims. This is against the Constitution,” Kharge asserted.

His remarks reflect a growing concern among opposition parties and minority communities over the implications of the bill on Waqf properties, religious institutions, and minority rights.

The Waqf Act, 1995, governs the administration and management of Waqf properties in India. These properties, donated for religious or charitable purposes, are meant to be protected from sale, transfer, or misuse.

The proposed Waqf Amendment Bill seeks to introduce changes that opposition leaders claim could dilute existing protections and pave the way for government intervention in Waqf assets. The government, however, maintains that the amendments aim to streamline Waqf administration, prevent encroachments, and ensure transparency.

Key Concerns Raised by the Opposition :

Opposition parties argue that the bill could lead to increased government interference in the management of Waqf properties. The concern is that state governments may be empowered to take over or reallocate Waqf lands, potentially affecting mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions.

Kharge and other leaders have warned that the bill could create legal conflicts over land ownership, leading to disputes between communities. Many believe that this could aggravate religious tensions at a time when communal harmony is already under strain in several states.

Critics argue that the bill is against the fundamental rights of the Muslim community, as guaranteed under Articles 25-30 of the Constitution, which protect religious freedoms and minority institutions. Any dilution of Waqf protections could undermine the autonomy of Muslim religious endowments.

Citing previous instances where the government repealed or amended laws after public backlash, Kharge insisted that the Waqf Bill should also be reconsidered if it contains errors or ambiguities. He urged the Home Minister not to treat the bill as a “prestige issue” and to prioritise consensus over political motives.

Government’s Justification for the Bill

Despite the opposition’s concerns, the government has defended the bill, claiming that: It aims to remove bureaucratic inefficiencies in Waqf management. It seeks to curb illegal occupations and misuse of Waqf lands. The bill will ensure greater transparency and accountability in Waqf administration.

Will the Government Reconsider?

With mounting pressure from the opposition and protests from Muslim organisations, the government may face hurdles in passing the bill smoothly. Legal experts, minority leaders, and community representatives are expected to weigh in on the issue, potentially influencing the government’s next move.

For now, the debate in Rajya Sabha underscores a broader battle over minority rights, religious autonomy, and the government’s approach to legislative changes affecting India’s diverse communities. Whether the government chooses to withdraw, amend, or push forward with the bill remains to be seen in the coming weeks.