New Delhi, April 3: BJP leader Amit Malviya has elaborated on the implications of key insertions in the Waqf Amendment Bill, highlighting major changes aimed at protecting historical monuments and tribal land rights.

Taking to the social media platform X, Malviya shared a detailed explanation of the amendments.

“One of the significant insertions in the bill, Clause 3D, states: Any declaration or notification issued under this Act or under any previous Act in respect of waqf properties shall be void, if such property was a protected monument or protected area under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, at the time of such declaration or notification,” he wrote on X.

Explaining its impact, Malviya stated that ASI-protected monuments have now been excluded from the Waqf’s ambit.

He emphasised that since the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is merely a custodian, protected properties may not necessarily be government assets.

“Another key amendment, Clause 3E, reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes under the provisions of the Fifth Schedule or the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shall be declared or deemed to be waqf property,” he said.

Malviya highlighted that this provision ensures the exclusion of tribal land from Waqf’s jurisdiction, thereby protecting the interests of tribal communities and preventing land encroachment.

He noted that this issue has been particularly pressing in states like Jharkhand and other tribal-dominated regions.

“This is a major step in protecting Tribal rights, benefiting Bengal’s Tribals and many others,” Malviya remarked.

The amendments in the Waqf Act have sparked discussions across political and social circles, with proponents asserting that they safeguard historical heritage and tribal communities.

Earlier, addressing the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, asserted that misconceptions about the Waqf (Amendment) Bill were being deliberately spread by certain parties to bolster their vote banks.

He said that the proposed legislation was in line with fulfilling the wishes of RJD chief Lalu Prasad, something the opposition had failed to do.

The Home Minister explained that the new law might not have been necessary had the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2013, passed under the Congress-led UPA II government, not been rushed through just months before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

At that time, Lalu Prasad, whose party had been part of the ruling coalition before withdrawing and later offering support, had raised concerns about the state of Waqf properties.

Quoting Lalu Prasad, HM Amit Shah said: “We welcome the amendment bill presented by the government. I support the statements made by (BJP’s) Shahnawaz Hussain and others. Most of the land has been grabbed, be it government-owned or otherwise. People in the Waqf Board have sold all the prime land. In Patna, apartments have been constructed on Dak Bungalow property. There has been a lot of loot like this.”

The Home Minister also reiterated that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, was not aimed at any particular religion and that the Congress and other opposition parties were spreading misinformation about the bill to serve their vote-bank politics.

New Delhi, April 3: After the Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, it will be tabled by the government in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday.

The Lok Sabha intensely discussed the bill for more than 12 hours, which began at Wednesday noon and continued till the early hours of Thursday. The Waqf Bill was passed with 288 votes in favour and 232 against.

Apart from the Waqf bill passage, a resolution was adopted by the Lower House confirming the President’s Rule in Manipur.

As per the Business List for Thursday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah will move in the Rajya Sabha the Statutory Resolution confirming the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur.

HM Shah will “move the following Resolution – that this House approves the Proclamation issued by the President on the 13th February 2025 under Article 356(1) of the Constitution in relation to the State of Manipur.”

The Lok Sabha early Thursday passed the Statutory Resolution confirming the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur. Even though members across party lines supported the decision, some opposition members slammed the Centre for the situation in Manipur. HM Shah said that the government has taken every possible measure to bring back normalcy in the restive Northeastern state.

Minister Dr Chandra Sekhar Pemmasani will lay a statement regarding the withdrawal of funds from the Contingency Fund of India for servicing Interest on Sovereign Guarantee Bonds (SGBs) raised by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL).

In the Lok Sabha, the Coastal Shipping Bill, 2024, will be put up by Minister Sarbananda Sonowal for consideration and passing. The motion was moved by Sonowal on April 1, namely – “That the Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to regulation of coastal shipping, promote coasting trade and encourage domestic participation therein, to ensure that India is equipped with a coastal fleet, owned and operated by the citizens of India for its national security and commercial needs, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, be taken into consideration.”

Minister Rammohan Naidu Kinjarapu will move The Protection of Interests In Aircraft Objects Bill, 2025, for consideration and passing. The Bill seeks to “provide for protection of interests in aircraft objects and to implement the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment, each signed at Cape Town on 16th November, 2001.”

Minister Manohar Lal Khattar will make a statement in the Lower House regarding “the status of implementation of the recommendations contained in the 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs on PM Street Vendor’s AtmaNirbhar Nidhi (PM SVANidhi) pertaining to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs”.

New Delhi, April 2: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rebuked Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy over his statement made in the state Assembly, saying he was making mockery of the anti-defection law.

The Chief Minister had stated that there would be no by-elections even if the MLAs of the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) defect to the ruling Congress.

“If this is said on the floor of the house, your Hon’ble CM is making a mockery of the 10th Schedule,” the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih, slamming the Chief Minister while hearing petitions filed by BRS leaders, seeking disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to Congress last year.

BRS MLA P. Kaushik Reddy had filed the petition seeking the disqualification of MLAs T. Venkata Rao, Danam Nagender, and Kadiyam Srihari for defecting to the Congress after winning the election on BRS tickets.

The Telangana High Court, in November last year, directed the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide on the disqualification petitions within a ‘reasonable time’.

Later, Kaushik Reddy and another BRS MLA K. Pandu Vivekananda and BJP MLA A. Maheshwar Reddy filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court, seeking direction to the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions in a time-bound manner.

The Supreme Court is also hearing the petition of BRS Working President K. T. Rama Rao, seeking the disqualification of seven other BRS MLAs who switched loyalties to Congress.

During the hearing on the petitions on Wednesday, counsel for the petitioners C. Aryaman Sundaram brought to the court’s notice the statement made by the Chief Minister in the Assembly on March 26.

Appearing for the respondents, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that Assembly proceedings were not in question in the present case.

Justice Gavai suggested that the senior lawyer warn the Chief Minister against making such controversial statements in the legislature.

“We know we are slow in issuing contempt notices, but we are also not powerless,” he said.

The bench observed that statements made in legislatures have sanctity.

“When politicians say something in the Assembly, it has got sanctity. In fact, the judgments say that when we interpret laws, the speech given on the floor of the House can be used for interpreting,” it said.

Justice Gavai told Rohatgi to warn the Chief Minister against repeating the mistake.

The judge was apparently referring to the CM’s remark made in August last year about the bail granted to BRS MLC K. Kavitha in Delhi liquor policy case. Revanth Reddy had reportedly stated that Kavitha could secure bail within five months as the vote bank of the BRS was transferred to the BJP.

“Do we pass our orders in consultation with political parties? We are not bothered about which party politicians belong to… We are not bothered by politicians’ criticism of our orders. We do our duty as per the Constitution and our oath,” Justice Gavai had said while addressing Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Revanth Reddy.

After the Supreme Court faulted the Chief Minister for his remarks, he unconditionally expressed his regret.

Speaking in the Assembly last month, the Chief Minister told BRS MLAs who switched loyalties to the Congress that they need not worry as by-elections will not be held.

The Chief Minister stated that during the BRS rule, turncoats took oath as ministers and no by- elections were held in the previous government. “How will by-elections be held now?” he asked.

The Chief Minister’s statement drew a strong reaction from the BRS leader Rama Rao, who had said that they would bring this to the court’s notice.