Deputy Leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi on Wednesday accused the government of attempting to "dilute the Constitution" through the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and questioned the need for proof of Islam in matters related to waqf.
Speaking on behalf of the Congress during the debate on the Waqf Bill, Gogoi alleged, "This bill aims to dilute the Constitution, defame minority communities, divide Indian society, and disenfranchise minorities."
Earlier, Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, citing the Constitution, said that the Narendra Modi government is not interfering with anyone’s right to "profess, practice, and propagate religion," as guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution. "This is related to Waqf management. It has got nothing to do with interfering in others' religions," Rijiju had said.
Challenging Rijiju’s remarks, Gaurav Gogoi pointed to an amendment requiring a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years before declaring a property as Waqf. He questioned, "Why seek proof of Islam for Waqf? Will they ask for a certificate from other religions whether you have completed five years or not? Why is this being asked in this bill? Why is the government interfering in this matter of religion?"
Gogoi also criticised Rijiju for allegedly misleading the House while referring to the UPA's governance in 2013. "What he said about 2013 is completely misleading," Gogoi said.
Also Read
Raising concerns over the Bill's broader implications, the Congress MP warned that its impact might not be limited to one community. "Today, they are targetting the land of one community; tomorrow, they will target another," he said.
Gogoi further argued that the proposed amendments would likely lead to increased legal disputes rather than resolving existing issues. "Amendments should aim to strengthen the Bill, not create more disputes," he added.
Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday introduced the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in the Lok Sabha as recommended by a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Following its introduction, the Lower House began deliberations on the Bill’s provisions and potential consequences.

)