Saurabh Mukherjee
For the second consecutive night, Parliament functioned well past midnight, with the Rajya Sabha passing the controversial Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025—now renamed the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act—at around 2:35 AM.
The bill was cleared with 128 votes in favour and 95 against, a narrower margin compared to its passage in the Lok Sabha on April 3, where it received 288 votes in support and 232 against.
The legislation, which seeks to overhaul the administration of Waqf properties, has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition, who accuse the government of communal targeting, land grabbing, and dismantling minority rights. On Thursday, several opposition MPs wore black in protest, signalling strong disapproval of the bill’s intent and process.
Opposition Unites in Dissent, but Cracks Show
Despite a largely unified front, divisions within the opposition surfaced. While parties like the TDP and JD(U) supported the bill in both Houses, the BJD opposed it but refrained from issuing a whip, allowing its seven MPs to vote as per conscience. Similarly, the YSRCP voiced opposition but did not compel its members to vote against the bill.
In the Rajya Sabha, proceedings were marked by heated exchanges, interruptions, and passionate speeches.
Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain, opening the opposition's argument, alleged that the BJP was using the bill for “communal polarisation” ahead of the general elections. He claimed the legislation was a result of electoral desperation after the BJP’s seat tally dropped significantly in the 2024 polls.
"Why did you support and pass it unanimously back then? The BJP came to power in 2014, yet for a decade they saw no issue with the law. It’s only in 2024, after their ambitious call for 400 seats in the Lok Sabha elections fell flat and they were reduced to 240, that they suddenly realised it was a 'draconian' law meant to appease a particular community," he said
“This bill is based on a false narrative built over the last six months through a misinformation campaign,” Hussain added.
Rijiju: "Not About Religion, Just Property Administration"
Union Minister for Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju defended the bill, rejecting allegations that it was anti-Muslim or unconstitutional. He asserted that the legislation was aimed purely at improving transparency and efficiency in Waqf property management.
“This has nothing to do with religion. It is about administrative reform,” Rijiju said, pushing back against the claim that the government was infringing on minority rights.
"It has been said here that Muslims will be harmed by the step we are taking. Many people said this is unconstitutional, illegal and the right of Muslims is being snatched away. Very categorically, I want to reject all these allegations," Rijiju said.
The UMEED Act renames the original 1995 Waqf Act and introduces changes in the composition of the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards. It mandates representation for Muslim women and controversially allows for non-Muslim participation in the boards. A separate board for Bohras and Aghakhanis is also proposed.
Crucially, the bill omits Section 40, which had empowered Waqf Boards to determine whether a property is Waqf. Another point of contention is the newly added clause requiring a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years to donate property as Waqf.
Concerns Over Discrimination, Budget Cuts and Minority Disempowerment
Independent MP Kapil Sibal raised strong objections, questioning why only Muslims could donate to Waqf under the new bill.
“If I am a Hindu and want to donate land for charitable purposes, why can’t I?” he asked.
Sibal also argued that the bill appeared to selectively target Muslim institutions while ignoring the vast land holdings of Hindu religious bodies in states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and others highlighted underutilised budgets and cutbacks in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, arguing that the government had withdrawn key welfare schemes for minorities while claiming to empower them.
“Schemes like the Maulana Azad Scholarship and free coaching were discontinued. You talk about empowerment, but the actions show otherwise,” Kharge said.
Opposition MPs voiced alarm over the clause requiring donors to prove their religious identity.
“Will there be CCTV cameras in homes and mosques now?” asked Congress MP Hussain, referencing earlier controversial remarks by the Prime Minister about identifying people “by their clothes”.
RJD’s Manoj Jha cautioned that the bill may serve as a legal cover for targeted demolition drives, warning of increased marginalisation of Muslims under the guise of reform.
Legal and Constitutional Objections
CPI(M) MP John Brittas criticised the omission of Section 107 from the original Act, which had previously exempted Waqf properties from the Limitation Act.
“Now you're applying limitation to Allah’s property but not to Devasthanams. You are discriminating between Gods,” he said, accusing the government of legal double standards.
Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi alleged that the bill masked an attempt to grab Waqf lands for big business interests.
"You've named this bill UMEED, but for a large section of the country, it represents hopelessness, not hope—because you're taking away their land to hand it over to big corporations. I urge you to withdraw this bill," Pratapgarhi said.
NCP’s Fauzia Khan echoed this, saying: “It’s like saying we’ll take over your house because you’re not managing it well.”
Although earlier versions of the bill allowed a district collector to determine if a property belonged to the government, a revised provision now entrusts the task to a higher-ranking officer.
Critics argue this still leaves too much power in the hands of the executive, with inadequate safeguards against state encroachment.
In a poignant moment, AAP MP Sanjay Singh pointed out that the BJP had only one Muslim MP—Ghulam Ali in the Rajya Sabha—who was the sole Muslim voice in the party to support the bill.
“You removed voices like Shahnawaz Hussain and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. How are you helping Muslims?” he asked.
Ghulam Ali, in his late-night speech, said the bill was not anti-Muslim but aimed at eliminating “conspiracies” tied to Waqf management.
The bill was cleared with 128 votes in favour and 95 against, a narrower margin compared to its passage in the Lok Sabha on April 3, where it received 288 votes in support and 232 against.
The legislation, which seeks to overhaul the administration of Waqf properties, has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition, who accuse the government of communal targeting, land grabbing, and dismantling minority rights. On Thursday, several opposition MPs wore black in protest, signalling strong disapproval of the bill’s intent and process.
Opposition Unites in Dissent, but Cracks Show
Despite a largely unified front, divisions within the opposition surfaced. While parties like the TDP and JD(U) supported the bill in both Houses, the BJD opposed it but refrained from issuing a whip, allowing its seven MPs to vote as per conscience. Similarly, the YSRCP voiced opposition but did not compel its members to vote against the bill.
In the Rajya Sabha, proceedings were marked by heated exchanges, interruptions, and passionate speeches.
Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain, opening the opposition's argument, alleged that the BJP was using the bill for “communal polarisation” ahead of the general elections. He claimed the legislation was a result of electoral desperation after the BJP’s seat tally dropped significantly in the 2024 polls.
"Why did you support and pass it unanimously back then? The BJP came to power in 2014, yet for a decade they saw no issue with the law. It’s only in 2024, after their ambitious call for 400 seats in the Lok Sabha elections fell flat and they were reduced to 240, that they suddenly realised it was a 'draconian' law meant to appease a particular community," he said
“This bill is based on a false narrative built over the last six months through a misinformation campaign,” Hussain added.
Rijiju: "Not About Religion, Just Property Administration"
Union Minister for Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju defended the bill, rejecting allegations that it was anti-Muslim or unconstitutional. He asserted that the legislation was aimed purely at improving transparency and efficiency in Waqf property management.
“This has nothing to do with religion. It is about administrative reform,” Rijiju said, pushing back against the claim that the government was infringing on minority rights.
"It has been said here that Muslims will be harmed by the step we are taking. Many people said this is unconstitutional, illegal and the right of Muslims is being snatched away. Very categorically, I want to reject all these allegations," Rijiju said.
The UMEED Act renames the original 1995 Waqf Act and introduces changes in the composition of the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards. It mandates representation for Muslim women and controversially allows for non-Muslim participation in the boards. A separate board for Bohras and Aghakhanis is also proposed.
Crucially, the bill omits Section 40, which had empowered Waqf Boards to determine whether a property is Waqf. Another point of contention is the newly added clause requiring a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years to donate property as Waqf.
Concerns Over Discrimination, Budget Cuts and Minority Disempowerment
Independent MP Kapil Sibal raised strong objections, questioning why only Muslims could donate to Waqf under the new bill.
“If I am a Hindu and want to donate land for charitable purposes, why can’t I?” he asked.
Sibal also argued that the bill appeared to selectively target Muslim institutions while ignoring the vast land holdings of Hindu religious bodies in states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and others highlighted underutilised budgets and cutbacks in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, arguing that the government had withdrawn key welfare schemes for minorities while claiming to empower them.
“Schemes like the Maulana Azad Scholarship and free coaching were discontinued. You talk about empowerment, but the actions show otherwise,” Kharge said.
Opposition MPs voiced alarm over the clause requiring donors to prove their religious identity.
“Will there be CCTV cameras in homes and mosques now?” asked Congress MP Hussain, referencing earlier controversial remarks by the Prime Minister about identifying people “by their clothes”.
RJD’s Manoj Jha cautioned that the bill may serve as a legal cover for targeted demolition drives, warning of increased marginalisation of Muslims under the guise of reform.
Legal and Constitutional Objections
CPI(M) MP John Brittas criticised the omission of Section 107 from the original Act, which had previously exempted Waqf properties from the Limitation Act.
“Now you're applying limitation to Allah’s property but not to Devasthanams. You are discriminating between Gods,” he said, accusing the government of legal double standards.
Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi alleged that the bill masked an attempt to grab Waqf lands for big business interests.
"You've named this bill UMEED, but for a large section of the country, it represents hopelessness, not hope—because you're taking away their land to hand it over to big corporations. I urge you to withdraw this bill," Pratapgarhi said.
NCP’s Fauzia Khan echoed this, saying: “It’s like saying we’ll take over your house because you’re not managing it well.”
Although earlier versions of the bill allowed a district collector to determine if a property belonged to the government, a revised provision now entrusts the task to a higher-ranking officer.
Critics argue this still leaves too much power in the hands of the executive, with inadequate safeguards against state encroachment.
In a poignant moment, AAP MP Sanjay Singh pointed out that the BJP had only one Muslim MP—Ghulam Ali in the Rajya Sabha—who was the sole Muslim voice in the party to support the bill.
“You removed voices like Shahnawaz Hussain and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. How are you helping Muslims?” he asked.
Ghulam Ali, in his late-night speech, said the bill was not anti-Muslim but aimed at eliminating “conspiracies” tied to Waqf management.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment