Centre, Opposition clash over Waqf Bill in Parliament committee meet

New Delhi: The Centre and Opposition engaged in a heated exchange over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill during a joint parliamentary committee meeting on Friday, leading to a brief walkout by opposition members. The Opposition voiced strong objections to the proposed removal of the ‘Waqf by user’ provision from the Waqf Act, warning that this change could undermine the security of over one lakh properties in Uttar Pradesh that were safeguarded under the existing provision, potentially exposing them to encroachment.

They argued that maintaining the ‘Waqf by user’ provision would ensure legal protection for historic sites that have been continuously recognized as Waqf properties. Tensions escalated when BJP member Dilip Saikia made remarks against AAP member Sanjay Singh, sparking a heated confrontation between opposition and BJP members. Further conflict arose between BJP member Medha Kulkarni and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, PTI reported.

Opposition members stage walkout

Proceedings were disrupted after concerns were raised about a lawyer who was representing both Indian Muslims for Civil Rights and the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf in separate depositions, prompting a brief walkout by several opposition members. Those who walked out included Mohammad Jawed and Imran Masood from Congress, Arvind Sawant from Shiv Sena-UBT, Sanjay Singh from AAP, Asaduddin Owaisi from AIMIM, A Raja and M Mohamed Abdulla from DMK, and Mohibbullah from SP.

Parliamentary panel holds 8-hour hearing

The meeting, chaired by BJP member Jagadambika Pal, lasted eight hours and included testimonies from various groups such as the All India Sunni Jamiyatul Ulama of Mumbai, the Indian Muslims for Civil Rights (IMCR) from Delhi, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, and the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf. The committee is set to reconvene on September 5 and 6. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, initially introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 8, was sent to the joint committee following a contentious debate.

Share This Article
Exit mobile version