The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in the early hours of Thursday, April 2, after a long 12-hour debate. A total of 288 members voted in favour of the bill, while 232 voted against it. The bill now moves to the Rajya Sabha for further discussion, where another long debate is expected. According to reports, eight hours have been set aside for this debate.

What happened in the Lok Sabha?

During the debate, the ruling NDA government defended the bill, saying it would benefit minorities. However, the opposition strongly opposed it, calling it "anti-Muslim." Even with objections, all amendments proposed by the opposition were rejected through voice votes, which means they were not considered for changes.

Union Minister for Minority Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, responded to the debate by stating that India is the safest place for minorities. He said, "There is no place in the world safer than India for minorities, and they are safe because the majority is entirely secular."

This bill was introduced after making changes suggested by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The government first brought this legislation in August last year. Along with the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, the Lok Sabha also passed another bill called the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2024.

What does the bill aim to do?

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill aims to make the management of waqf properties in India more efficient. The government says the bill will improve the working of Waqf boards, which manage properties meant for religious and charitable purposes in the Muslim community. It seeks to fix problems in the 1995 Act by making the registration process easier and introducing technology to maintain Waqf records.

Kiren Rijiju’s strong response to the opposition

During the discussion, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju strongly criticised the opposition for calling the bill "anti-Muslim." He claimed that many poor Muslims would actually benefit from it. "Crores of poor Muslims will thank PM Modi on the bill being passed," he said.

He also dismissed the opposition’s claim that the bill was unconstitutional. He argued that if it was unconstitutional, the courts would have already struck it down. He further said, "We should not use the words 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' so lightly."

 

You might also be interested in: What is the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024? Its history & proposed changes | Explained