Hyderabad: MP and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Friday, January 31, released the dissent notes he had submitted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf Bill (Amendment). He alleged that significant portions of his submissions were deleted from the final report without his knowledge.
Taking to X, Asaduddin Owaisi described the deletion as “shocking,” adding that the removed sections were factual and not controversial. He publicly released the original notes to highlight his objections to the amendment.
Key points allegedly removed from Asaduddin Owaisi’s dissent notes included:
- The necessity of protecting the rights of Muslim Scheduled Tribe members to constitute a Waqf.
- Criticism that the proposed amendments were politically driven and aimed at undermining minority rights, particularly those of Muslims.
Asaduddin Owaisi, 9 MPs suspended for disrupting Waqf Bill JPC meet
- Allegations that the voices of Muslim interest groups opposing the bill were ignored.
- Assertions that the amendment was not drafted for the benefit of Waqf Boards but served the Union government’s agenda.
“The Ministry’s consultations, as reported by the media, lacked transparency and adequate notice. There was no official disclosure of meeting minutes or meaningful public engagement,” he noted in his dissent.
JPC submits Waqf Amendment Bill report to Lok Sabha Speaker
Asaduddin Owaisi highlighted in his dissent notes that media reports lacked specific details about the consultations referenced in the Historical Background document provided to JPC members. He pointed out that these reports relied heavily on statements from unnamed ministry sources, with no official notice or public disclosure of meeting minutes.
The Hyderabad MP reiterated that stakeholders had not been adequately consulted, and their detailed objections were disregarded. Asaduddin Owaisi further criticised the process, stating that consultations require reasonable public notice and a clear expression of the government’s agenda, neither of which was fulfilled.
He concluded by questioning the credibility of the consultation process, calling it a superficial exercise aimed at legitimising political objectives.
