“And to assure the nation that the committee is fair and free in arriving any conclusions on the Bill without any bias and departure from the well established Parliamentary procedures.”“Otherwise, we humbly submit that we may be forced to disassociate with JPC once and for all as we have been stonewalled,” it added.The panel will hold a two-day meeting on November 5-6, followed by a five-state tour from November 9. The panel is expected to submit the report during the first week of the winter session of Parliament.“It may not be out of context to mention here that more than 100 Amendments are made in the newly drafted Bill 2024 as against the claim of only 44 Amendments by the Government. Out of these Amendments, we are reasonably confined to express our fear that the religious, spiritual, and moral fabrics of a legal Institution i.e. Waqf Board is going to be erased which will tarnish our country’s image in the eye of the world community on minority rights guaranteed in our Constitution. For aforesaid reasons, the sittings of the Committee must be decided in such a manner with adequate time to discuss and deliberate every clause of the Bill including the legislative competency of the Parliament,” said the letter.The legal exercise done by the government through the Bill is an attempt to mitigate the earlier legislations made by the Parliament which ensured the secular credentials of the Constitution, pointed out the Opposition members.“In order to get a consistent legal outcome, the deliberations took place in the Parliament when the erstwhile Acts, were passed in 1995 and 2013, the judicial pronouncement in this regard including lis pendence, deposition of various departments and Muslim organizations going to be made before the JPC must academically as well legally be scrutinized and synchronized after every sitting by the members to understand the discussed issues, which need reasonable time gap between the sittings of the committee.”“It is needless to say that the legislative wisdom contemplated under the legal Maxim known to our jurisprudence ‘lex prospicit non respicit’ should be kept in mind,” the letter stated.
Source link
