Jammu, April 7 – The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly witnessed an intense uproar on Monday after Speaker A.R. Rather ruled out a discussion on the contentious Waqf Amendment Bill, resulting in a temporary adjournment of the House. The disruption marked the first adjournment of the ongoing budget session, which had resumed earlier in the day following a 12-day recess.
As the House convened for the day’s proceedings, members from the National Conference (NC), Indian National Congress, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and several Independent legislators rose in unison to demand that the Question Hour be suspended to allow a debate on the Waqf Bill. Simultaneously, legislators from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stood up to oppose the demand, triggering a heated exchange across the aisles.
The legislators pushing for the discussion had moved nine adjournment motions, urging the House to take up the issue on priority. However, Speaker Rather, citing Rules 56 and 58 of the Assembly Procedures, refused to entertain the motions. He specifically referred to sub-rule 7 of Rule 58, which prohibits discussions on matters that are sub judice, stating unequivocally that the Waqf issue falls within that category and hence cannot be deliberated upon in the House.
Despite opposition from the members, the Speaker remained firm in his stance. PDP’s Waheed Para sought to counter the ruling by pointing out that the Waqf matter had previously been debated in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, suggesting a precedent for discussion. But Rather rebutted this argument, clarifying that the issue was not sub judice at the time of its debate in Tamil Nadu, whereas the present circumstances in J&K are different.
This clarification failed to pacify the agitating members. Amidst continuous slogans of “Waqf Bill Namanzoor” (Waqf Bill Unacceptable), legislators from the NC, Congress, PDP, and several Independents stormed into the Well of the House, chanting and holding placards. The sloganeering and visible tension prompted Speaker Rather to adjourn the House for 15 minutes, hoping to restore order.
When the Assembly reconvened after the brief break, the situation remained unchanged. Legislators resumed their protests with renewed intensity, again demanding an immediate debate on the bill. The Speaker tried to press forward with the proceedings but was drowned out by the slogans and protests continuing from the opposition benches.
The Waqf Amendment Bill, which has sparked fierce debate, is aimed at bringing changes to the administration and control of Waqf properties in Jammu and Kashmir. Critics allege that the amendments would centralize authority over religious endowments and marginalize local stakeholders, particularly the Muslim community, which historically manages these assets.
Although the government has not released the full text of the amendment in public domain, sources suggest that the proposed changes may empower the Waqf Board with greater administrative powers and could also expand the government’s oversight over how Waqf properties are managed and leased. This has led to serious apprehensions among the opposition, religious organizations, and civil society members who fear that the bill would erode community-based control and alter the traditional framework of governance surrounding Waqf assets.
The storm in the Assembly reflects broader tensions within the region over religious and cultural autonomy. Waqf properties in J&K—ranging from mosques and shrines to schools and hospitals—have historically played a crucial role in the region’s social and religious fabric. The opposition contends that any legislation affecting their governance must come through a transparent and participatory process, with due consultation of all stakeholders.
Outside the Assembly, political leaders and religious organizations echoed similar concerns. Several groups have warned that the bill, if passed without proper scrutiny and debate, could lead to widespread protests. Members of the J&K Muslim Personal Law Board and various clerical bodies have also weighed in, demanding that the legislative process ensure fair representation and consultation with religious institutions.
The BJP, however, has defended the bill, asserting that the amendments are designed to enhance transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Waqf Board. BJP legislators argue that over the years, there have been multiple reports of mismanagement and corruption in the handling of Waqf properties, and that the current legislative intervention is aimed at addressing these gaps.
Nonetheless, critics have called the timing and method of the bill’s introduction as hasty and opaque. Opposition leaders argue that introducing such a critical bill during the budget session, especially without placing it in the public domain or holding discussions in legislative committees, signals a lack of democratic intent.
The current impasse indicates that the Waqf Amendment Bill will remain a flashpoint in J&K politics for the foreseeable future. With regional parties rallying around the issue and public sentiment increasingly polarized, the bill could emerge as a litmus test for the government’s approach to religious autonomy and institutional transparency.
Meanwhile, sources within the Assembly Secretariat indicate that the government may attempt to bring the bill back to the floor in one of the later sessions, possibly with minor revisions to placate the opposition. However, unless a broad consensus is built, any attempt to push the bill through the House is likely to be met with stiff resistance both inside and outside the legislature.
The incident also brings to light larger questions about the role of legislative forums in safeguarding community rights, especially in regions with complex socio-religious landscapes like Jammu and Kashmir. The Speaker’s ruling, based on procedural rules, may be technically sound, but the political ramifications of disallowing a debate on a sensitive issue have clearly struck a nerve across the political spectrum.
Going forward, much will depend on whether the government opens channels for dialogue and consultation with opposition parties and religious bodies. Without broader engagement, the confrontation witnessed on the Assembly floor is likely to spill into the streets, escalating political tensions in an already sensitive region.
As the budget session continues, all eyes will be on how the government chooses to proceed. Whether it opts for negotiation or attempts to pass the bill through sheer numbers could shape the political discourse in the Union Territory in the weeks ahead.
The protests in the Assembly underline the growing chasm between the treasury and opposition benches on issues of religious and institutional governance. The government’s ability to navigate this divide without further alienating key communities will be crucial to maintaining political stability in Jammu and Kashmir.
