Supreme Court refuses to stay Kerala HC curbs on Waqf Board; removes supervision

“We are satisfied there was no need for adding the last line that the Board shall function under supervision of Joint Secretary,’ the court said

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Kerala high court order restraining the state Waqf Board to incur any expenditure or take policy decisions in a challenge alleging the Board composition to be not in conformity with law.

The court referred the matter back to the high court. The matter is next listed on Wednesday. (File photo)

However, the court modified the interim direction of the high court issued on July 15 appointing a senior state bureaucrat to supervise the Board’s functioning observing that the same was not necessary when it had already been restrained from taking any major decision.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, “In view of the opening line of the high court order in paragraph six (6) where under the Board was directed not to take any policy decision or incur capital expenditure without the court’s leave, we are satisfied there was no need for adding the last line that the Board shall function under supervision of Joint Secretary. Consequently the last line is deleted.”

The court referred the matter back to the high court. The matter is next listed on Wednesday.

The top court passed the order on an appeal filed by the Kerala State Waqf Board represented by senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and V Chitambaresh. They argued that the high court passed the order without hearing them and in a public interest litigation that sought appointment of two non-Muslims in the Board as per section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act (UMEED), 1995.

The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said, “The order changes a member to a supervisory role,” referring to the joint secretary-rank officer who is a member of the State Waqf Board in an ex-officio capacity.

“He is as good or as bad as any other member,” the bench said as it clarified that its order will not come in the way of the joint secretary or additional secretary to continue functioning as a member of the Board.

The court further requested the high court to decide the matter expeditiously after giving a fair opportunity to the parties concerned.

The state represented by senior advocate Jaideep Gupta pointed out that the state supports the implementation of section 14 of the Act and said that the Board has not disclosed that the petitions before the high court also sought nomination of member from Shia community.

He said that for nominating a Shia member, the actual representation of different categories among Muslims has to be first decided based on their numbers.

Ahmadi told the court that the state is supporting the high court petitioners as it wants to substitute the Board members with persons of their choice. He said hat the functioning of the Board was rendered defunct by the present order.

He said a similar situation came up before the top court in February 2026 when a similar order by the Madras high court making the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board defunct was stayed by this court.

The bench said that in Tamil Nadu case, the Board itself was rendered defunct. However, in the present case, the high court allowed the Board to function but with conditions attached.

Chitambaresh informed the bench that non-appointment of members cannot be a ground to stall the functioning of the Board as it can be done later.

He said that the state had informed the high court that it was in the process of filling up the vacancies. The amendment made to the UMEED Act in 2025 mandates that at least two non-Muslim members, excluding non-officio members, in the Waqf Board must be part of the Board for its functioning .

“The vacancies in the Waqf Board have been filled in strict compliance with the statutory provisions and there are no grounds to suspend the functioning of the present Waqf Members on the ground of vacant post of two non- Muslim members,” the Board stated in its petition filed by advocate Subhash Chandran KR.