Singhvi refers to karnataka hindu religious and charitable endowments 1997; Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955; Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine , 1988; Tamil Nadu Religious & charitable endowments 1959; the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983; Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. etc and questions if in any of these legislations a member not belonging to that respective religion is appointed.
Singhvi says in the Parent Act, the waqf board CEO has to be a Muslim which is now removed in the Bill.
Singhvi says the clause 11 has been smartly drafted in a sense that it mentions the State Gov has to nominate 3 Muslim members to the State Board, which means 8 others can be non-Muslim
Singhvi refers to Clause 11 of the Bill, which says the Board for a State and NCT Delhi will consist of 11 members nominated by the State Gov. He questions what autonomy is left with the Islamic Muslim organisation.
Another reference made by Singhvi of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs The State Of Rajasthan and he quotes: "Article 26 brings out the competence of the legislature to make a law in regard to the administration belonging to religious denomimation...the denomination's right must however not be extinguished, diminished or destroyed under the guise of regulating the administration of the property by the denomination".
Singhvi refers to Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay and says: "the law which takes way the right of administration altogether from religious denomination and vests it in another other more secular authority would amount to violation of rights under Article 26"
AM Singhvi (Congress) says the Bill tries to take away the rights the Constitution guarantees. He says the Bill completely violates Articles 25 and 26. Singhvi points out that he was a part of the matters related to Sabrimala temple and Dawoodi Bohra and one thing the Supreme Court has clearly stated, once a practice becomes an essential religious practice, it is completed protected by Articles 25 and 26.
Jha says litigation will increase exponentially after the Gov has decided to omit the 'waqf by user' provision.
Manoj Kumar Jha, RJD, ppposes the Bill. He says since the environment of the country is going through unrest because there are constant talks of economic boycott of a community, attempts are made at digging the centuries old mosques to find if there is a temple beneath it, Places of Worship is being challenged, the content and intent of this Bill needs to be questioned
Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy, YSRCP, opposes the Bill; he says it undermines the rights of Muslims, is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 25. Also, he states that the proposed name of the Bill 'unified waqf management empowerment efficiency and development' completes disregards the historical and crucial religious significance of the word 'waqf'.