Opposition questions ex-judges testifying in Waqf JPC meet

A meeting of the joint parliamentary committee on the Waqf Bill, where a group of judges appeared to present arguments in support of the proposed legislation, ended in controversy with opposition members questioning the relevance of the judges’ positions.

The official agenda of the meeting were testimonies of the Delhi, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Haryana waqf boards. But, when the judges — former Delhi high court judge justice SN Dhingra, former Kerala HC judge justice PN Raveendran and former Rajasthan HC judge justice Raghuvendra Singh Rathore — appeared as supporters of the bill the opposition members pointed to the reputation of the judges and questioned their intentions, people familiar with the details of the acrimonious meeting said.

The meeting was attended by Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh, Congress MP Naseer Hussain and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, who all questioned the position of the four judges, the people cited above said.

The attending members of the JPC also included members of a group called “Call for Justice” and Chandra Wadhwa, who is also a member of India Foundation which is led by Bhartiya Janata Party’s Ram Madhav.

The bill seeks to bring changes to the powers of state waqf boards, survey of waqf properties and removal of encroachments by amending the Waqf Act, 1995, among other changes.

The opposition MPs pointed out that justice Dhingra was appointed by the Haryana BJP government in 2015 to conduct an inquiry against Robert Vadra, Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law. This, they said, shows that he was a politically invested person, while also not having any relevance to the current Waqf property issue. HT reached out to Justice Dhingra but he said he would revert with answers to the queries.

Similarly, the MPs also asked questions of justice Raveendran, who is known for the so-called “Love Jihad” case where he annulled the marriage of a Hindu woman to a Muslim Man. Justice Raveendran also joined the BJP after his retirement.

The Opposition MPs asked why a Muslim individual donating their land to the Waqf board out of their own volition was a problem. They also pointed out that there were similar practices in other religions but the judges seemed only to have a problem because this was a Muslim group. At such questioning, people familiar with the matter said on condition of anonymity, that the judges objected to such behaviour. The judges reportedly told the MPs that their appearance in front of the JPC was only to cite their opinion about why the amendments to the existing Waqf Act were required.

Waqf panel chairman Jagdambika Pal tried to mollify the judges, but Opposition MPs pointed out that the JPC’s job was to question all witnesses, and that the judges were not there in their position as judicial officers but as witnesses.

After the judges left the meeting, the Opposition MPs also held a discussion about how to prevent such witnesses from appearing before the JPC in future.