Key Points
Congress claims Waqf Bill attacks Constitution's basic structure
Bill passed with 128-95 in Rajya Sabha and 288-232 in Lok Sabha
Kharge alleges bill targets minorities
Rijiju defends bill as beneficial for poor Muslims
In a post on X, Jairam Ramesh, the party's Rajya Sabha member and General Secretary in charge of party communications, wrote, "The INC will very soon be challenging in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the Wakf (Amendment) Bill, 2024."
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was approved by Parliament, with the Rajya Sabha giving its nod in the early hours of Friday following a 12-hour marathon debate.
The Bill was passed in the Upper House with 128 votes in favour and 95 against.
The Lok Sabha on Thursday cleared the Bill with 288 voting for and 232 voting against.
Congress has vehemently opposed the Bill in both Houses of Parliament. The party has claimed that it was an attack on the basic structure of the Constitution and was aimed a "polarising" and "dividing" the country on the basis of religion.
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge has said the bill has flaws, as has been proven by the voting in the Lok Sabha, where 232 members voted against it.
In a post on X, Kharge wrote in Hindi (loosely translated), "Such an atmosphere has been created in the country regarding the Waqf Board Amendment Bill that this bill has been brought to harass the minorities. When this bill was passed in the Lok Sabha late at night, 288 votes were cast in its favour and 232 against it. Why did this happen? This means that there are many flaws in the bill."
He said that from the huge opposition in the Lower House, it can be surmised that the Bill has been brought arbitrarily.
"From this, we can guess that despite opposition from various parties, this bill was brought arbitrarily. This "mighty stick owns the buffalo" - will not be good for anyone!", he further wrote in his post.
The government has, however, said that crores of poor Muslims will benefit from this legislation and in no way does it harm any single Muslim.
Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the legislation does not interfere in the Waqf properties. He said the Modi government works with the vision of 'Sabka Saath and Sabka Vikas', and does not discriminate against any community.
After the passage of the Bill in both Houses of Parliament, the Congress is now preparing to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
Jairam Ramesh said the Congress has already challenged all the major decisions of the Modi-led government in the apex court.
Giving a list of these, Ramesh said the party has challenged CAA; 2019 amendments to the RTI Act, 2005; validity of the amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules (2024); and has also filed an intervention to uphold the letter and spirit of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
He said all these cases are being heard in the Supreme Court.
"We are confident and will continue to resist all assaults of the Modi Govt on the principles, provisions, and practices that are contained in the Constitution of India," Ramesh further wrote in the post
Comments:
Rahul K.
2 hours ago
Interesting move by Congress. While I support judicial review, I hope this doesn't become just another political battle. The focus should be on whether the bill actually helps people or not. 🤔
Ayesha P.
1 hour ago
As a Muslim woman, I appreciate Congress standing up for minority rights. The government keeps saying this bill helps us, but where's the actual proof? More transparency would help everyone understand better.
Sanjay M.
45 mins ago
Respectful criticism here - I wish Congress would spend more energy proposing alternative solutions rather than just opposing everything. What's their vision for Waqf reform? Opposition needs to be constructive too.
Neha J.
30 mins ago
The marathon debate shows how important this issue is! 12 hours is no joke. Hope SC gives this proper consideration. Our constitution needs to be protected from all sides. 👍
Vikram R.
15 mins ago
The voting numbers show this isn't a clear-cut issue. 232 against in Lok Sabha is significant opposition. Maybe the bill needs more discussion before implementation?
