The Kerala State Waqf Board has approached the Supreme Court challenging an interim order of the Kerala High Court that restrained it from taking any major administrative or policy decisions. The case has attracted nationwide attention as it concerns the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, particularly the statutory requirement relating to the composition of State Waqf Boards.

The controversy raises significant constitutional and administrative law questions concerning statutory compliance, judicial oversight of statutory bodies, and the balance between ensuring uninterrupted governance of religious institutions and enforcing legislative mandates.

The appeal was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan, which agreed to list the matter for hearing on July 20.

 

Background of the Dispute

The dispute originates from a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) pending before the Kerala High Court challenging the legality of the present Kerala State Waqf Board.

The petitioners argued that the Board has been constituted in violation of the amended provisions of the Waqf Act because it does not include the statutorily mandated non-Muslim members.

The principal petitioners include:

• BJP State Vice President Shone George;
• Assembly of Christian Trust Services (ACTS), a Christian charitable trust;
• Stalin V.M., a retired Indian Air Force Junior Warrant Officer and former Kerala Government Under Secretary.

Apart from questioning the Board’s composition, certain petitions also challenge specific administrative decisions taken by the Board, including the uploading of disputed Munambam land details onto the UMEED Portal.

 

Kerala High Court’s Interim Order

On 15 July 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed an interim order after observing that the present constitution of the Kerala State Waqf Board appeared, prima facie, to be inconsistent with Section 14 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Pending final adjudication, the High Court directed that:

• the Board shall not take any major administrative decisions;
• no policy decisions shall be taken;
• no capital expenditure shall be incurred;
• any significant action would require prior permission of the High Court.

Further, the Court directed that the Board should continue functioning under the administrative supervision of the Joint Secretary of the State Government dealing with Waqf affairs until the issue regarding its composition is finally decided.

 

Why Was the Board’s Composition Challenged?

The controversy centres around Section 14 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The amended provision requires that every State Waqf Board must include:

• at least two non-Muslim members (excluding ex-officio members); and
• representation in accordance with the statutory composition prescribed under the amended Act.

The petitioners alleged that:

• the Kerala Government constituted the Board exclusively with Muslim members;
• mandatory statutory requirements were ignored;
• the constitution of the Board is therefore illegal;
• every subsequent decision taken by such a Board is vulnerable to challenge.

Certain petitioners also contended that one seat reserved for an MLA continues to be occupied by a person who ceased to be a legislator after the 2026 Kerala Assembly elections, thereby creating an additional defect in the Board’s composition.

Munambam Land Issue

One of the connected petitions concerns the highly controversial Munambam land dispute.

The Assembly of Christian Trust Services (ACTS) challenged the Kerala Waqf Board’s decision to upload details of the disputed property onto the “UMEED Portal”, a central digital database created for maintaining records of Waqf properties across India.

The petitioners contend that recording disputed land as Waqf property before final adjudication could adversely affect competing ownership claims and prejudice ongoing disputes.

Although the High Court’s interim order primarily addresses the legality of the Board’s composition, the Munambam controversy has significantly increased the public importance of the litigation.

 

Connection With the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 introduced sweeping reforms aimed at improving governance, transparency and accountability in the administration of Waqf properties.

Among its notable reforms are:

• mandatory inclusion of non-Muslim members on State Waqf Boards;
• digitisation of Waqf properties through the UMEED Portal;
• enhanced administrative oversight;
• reforms concerning Waqf Tribunals and appellate remedies;
• measures to improve transparency in management of Waqf assets.

The constitutional validity of several provisions of the Amendment Act is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court.

However, significantly, the Supreme Court did not stay the operation of Section 14 requiring inclusion of non-Muslim members. Instead, during the interim proceedings, it permitted implementation of the provision while indicating that State Boards should not have more than three non-Muslim members until the constitutional challenge is finally decided.

 

 

 

Kerala Waqf Board’s Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the interim restrictions imposed by the High Court, the Kerala State Waqf Board has now approached the Supreme Court.

The Board seeks to challenge the High Court’s order on the ground that the restrictions substantially hamper its ability to discharge statutory responsibilities relating to:

• administration of Waqf properties;
• financial management;
• public welfare activities;
• routine governance of Waqf institutions.

The matter was mentioned before the Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which agreed to hear the appeal on 20 July. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether the High Court’s interim directions were justified pending adjudication of the challenge to the Board’s constitution.

 

Legal Issues Before the Courts

The litigation presents several important legal questions:

1. Mandatory Nature of Section 14 –

Whether inclusion of two non-Muslim members is a mandatory statutory condition or merely directory.

2. Validity of the Present Board –

Whether the Kerala State Waqf Board can continue functioning if its composition does not satisfy statutory requirements.

3. Effect of Defective Constitution –

Whether decisions taken by a Board allegedly constituted contrary to law remain legally enforceable.

4. Scope of Interim Judicial Intervention –

Whether the High Court was justified in restricting policy decisions before finally determining the legality of the Board’s constitution.

5. Administrative Continuity –

How courts should balance uninterrupted governance of statutory religious bodies with strict compliance with legislative mandates.

 

Significance of the Case

The outcome of this litigation could have consequences extending far beyond Kerala.

It may:

• clarify the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025;
• determine how mandatory the revised composition requirements are;
• influence the constitution of Waqf Boards across India;
• shape judicial standards for intervention in the functioning of statutory bodies;
• affect future governance of thousands of Waqf properties nationwide.

Given that the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act remains pending before the Supreme Court, the present case may also serve as an important indicator of how courts interpret and enforce the new legislative framework.

 

Conclusion

The Kerala Waqf Board’s appeal before the Supreme Court represents another significant development in the ongoing legal challenges surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the Kerala High Court has taken the view that the Board’s composition appears inconsistent with the amended law and has therefore limited its decision-making powers, the Supreme Court will now examine whether such restrictions are legally sustainable.

The decision will be closely watched not only for its immediate impact on the functioning of the Kerala State Waqf Board but also for the broader guidance it may provide on statutory compliance, governance of religious endowments, and the implementation of the 2025 amendments. As the constitutional challenges to the amended Waqf law continue before the Supreme Court, this case is poised to become an important precedent in defining the future administration of Waqf institutions across India.

“Note: At the time of writing, the Supreme Court has agreed to list the Kerala Waqf Board’s appeal for hearing, and the merits of the appeal remain to be adjudicated.”