The Kerala Wakf Board has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's recent order restraining the Board from taking major policy decisions.
The senior counsel pointed out that in a similar order concerning the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief.
Acting on PILs filed challenging the State Wakf Board constitution, the High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
It states that the Kerala State Wakf Board oversees more than 89,000 wakf properties and considers nearly 200 matters every week in judicial sittings.
More than 600 matters are pending before Wakf Tribunals and over 500 before the Kerala High Court, besides cases before the Supreme Court.
The Kerala Wakf Board has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's recent order restraining the Board from taking major policy decisions.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the matter on Monday/Tuesday after it was mentioned for urgent listing. Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh mentioned the matter, saying that through an interim order without notice to the other side, the Board has been made virtually defunct. The senior counsel pointed out that in a similar order concerning the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the Supreme Court had granted interim relief.
The High Court passed the restraint order after noting that the State Wakf Board was constituted without including two non-Muslim members and one Shia member as per the mandatory requirements introduced as per the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act.
Acting on PILs filed challenging the State Wakf Board constitution, the High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. prima facie found that the Board is not constituted in accordance with Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act 1995 due to the absence of 2 non-Muslim members and one Shia member.
"In view of the fact that admittedly, two non-Muslim members have not been included in the Waqf Board and also, as urged by some of the writ petitioners that one Shia member should also be included, we hold that the constitution of the Board prima facie appears to be not in conformity with Section14 of the said Act. Hence, the present Board shall not take any major decisions or incur any capital expenditure or any policy decision without the express leave of this Court," the High Court ordered.
Board's arguments in the Special Leave Petition
The Board's central submission is that the High Court ignored Section 22 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, which expressly provides that vacancies or defects in the Board's constitution do not invalidate its proceedings.
According to the petition, the absence of two non-Muslim members cannot render the Board dysfunctional, as the statute specifically protects the validity of its actions despite vacancies. The Board argues that there is "no law that all the members in the Waqf Board should be nominated at once."
It submits that only the State Government has the power to supersede a Wakf Board under Section 99 of the Act, and that too only after satisfying stringent statutory requirements, including prima facie evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct or abuse of powers, and after issuing a show-cause notice to the Board.
The High Court, it contends, could not impose restrictions that amount to supersession without following the statutory framework.
The Board says its counsel had requested a short accommodation because he had not received the State Government's statement filed a day earlier. According to the petition, the High Court declined the request without assigning reasons and proceeded to pass the interim order based primarily on the submissions of the writ petitioners and the Additional Solicitor General.
The petition claims the Board was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond, causing serious prejudice.
The petition maintains that the Board cannot be faulted for the absence of two non-Muslim members because appointments are exclusively the responsibility of the State Government.
It points out that the Government itself informed the High Court that it was prepared to reconstitute the Board in compliance with Section 14 and had even sought dismissal of one of the connected PILs.
The petition further attributes the delay to the Bar Council elections and the constitution of the new Kerala Legislative Assembly after the April 2026 elections
Among the questions of law framed in the petition, the Board argues that the doctrine of necessity should apply to ensure that statutory bodies continue to function despite vacancies, particularly where the appointments are dependent on the State Government and the Board itself has no role in making them.
The petition emphasises the practical impact of the High Court's order.
It states that the Kerala State Wakf Board oversees more than 89,000 wakf properties and considers nearly 200 matters every week in judicial sittings. More than 600 matters are pending before Wakf Tribunals and over 500 before the Kerala High Court, besides cases before the Supreme Court.
The Board says the interim restrictions would disrupt scheduled judicial sittings, adalats and a 100-day training programme for over 15,000 mutawallis, adversely affecting the administration of wakf institutions across the State.
The Special Leave Petition seeks stay of the High Court's interim order pending adjudication of the challenge.
