'JPC On Waqf Bill Violated Parliamentary Procedures' : TMC MP Mahua Moitra's Plea In Supreme Court

Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament from Krishnanagar in Lok Sabha, has challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds, inter alia,  that the Parliamentary rules and practices were violated during the law-making process, contributing to the unconstitutionality of the 2025 Act.

This is the first petition out of the many filed so far where it has been contended that the Chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) flouted the parliamentary rules and practices both at the stage of consideration and adoption of the draft report of the JPC on the Bill and at the stage of presentation of the said report before the Parliament. 

The petitioner states that the draft report of the JPC was circulated to the members of the Committee only on January 28, a day before it was to be considered final for adoption on January 29. It is averred that this made it "practically impossible to read [the report]".

 It is an inviolable rule that upon the Chairperson's approval of the draft report prepared by the Secretariat, copies of such a report are supposed to be 'circulated to members of the Committee well in advance of the date fixed for the consideration of the draft report by the Committee.' (Speaker's Direction 69(1); Kaul and Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament (2016) p 853).

Further, the petition claims that the dissent notes submitted by the members belonging to the Opposition, who were a part of the JPC, were "unreasonably" and "arbitrarily" redacted from the final report represented before the Parliament on February 13. 

The Chairperson failed to demonstrate that the redacted submissions and notes used unparliamentary language. The redaction of the dissenting viewpoints and submissions undermined the Parliament's prerogative to consider all the views contained in the report prior to arriving at its independent conclusions during the deliberative process. (Kaul and Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament (2016) p 854).

Other irregularities, as alleged in the petition, were in the conduct of the JPC, including the invitation of non-stakeholders for the meetings, the non-disclosure of the minutes of the meetings, the responses of witnesses and the presentations made during the meetings with members.

The petitioner has also challenged various provisions of the 2025 Act, such as those omitting waqf by user, insertion of Section 3C, inclusion of two non-Muslim members excluding the two ex-officio members in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards.

First, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 seriously violates the principle of the rule of law, equality before the law and equal treatment by the law, forming the bedrock of the constitutional imperative of equal citizenship. In stark contrast to statutory provisions stipulating the composition of administrative Councils, Committees and Boards of nonMuslim religious and charitable endowments, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 amends Sections 9 and 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 to mandate the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards.

Further, the insertion of Section 64(I) provides additional grounds for the removal of a Mutawalli if he is a member of any association which has been declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Other grounds include removing Section 104 of the 1995 Waqf Act, which validated the giving and donation of any movable and immovable property by any person not profession Islam.

Section 4 (ix) of the Impugned Amendment Act, by amending Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995, not only prevents the donation of property by non-Muslims but also imposes arbitrary criteria of demonstrating the practice of Islam for five years on any Waqif