The Kerala High Court has declined to put on hold the State government’s decision to reconstitute the Kerala State Waqf Board, leaving the appointment of nine new members undisturbed for now.
Justice S Manu passed the order during a special sitting on Saturday, October 17, while hearing two petitions challenging the government’s notification issued a day earlier.
The petitions, filed by former Board chairperson KS Hamza and member CK Usman Haji, questioned the government’s authority to replace the existing members and constitute the Board afresh.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the State could cancel the earlier appointments and nominate a new set of members, particularly in light of its previous submissions before a Division Bench in proceedings concerning the Board’s composition.
The single-judge Bench found no prima facie merit in the petitioners’ contention that the reconstitution violated the State’s earlier submissions or the directions issued in related public interest litigation.
The Court observed that the previous Division Bench had permitted the government to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Board was constituted in accordance with the law.
On the question of whether the government could cancel existing appointments, the Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud & Another. The ruling recognised that the power to appoint members to a Waqf Board also carries the authority to cancel such appointments.
Dispute over statutory safeguards
The petitioners argued that the government could not remove the existing members without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 20 and 99 of the amended Waqf Act, formally known as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995. These provisions deal with the removal of members and the supersession of the Board.
The State defended its decision by questioning the legality of the earlier Board’s constitution. It maintained that the previous appointments did not comply with Section 14 of the Act, particularly the requirements governing representation of different Muslim communities.
According to the government, it had exercised its implied authority to cancel the earlier appointments and reconstitute the Board in line with the statutory requirements.
The controversy follows earlier public interest litigation concerning the Board’s composition, in which a Division Bench had directed the State to fill vacancies in accordance with the law. Questions had also been raised over the continuation of certain members and the overall legality of the Board’s structure.
While declining to grant an interim stay, the High Court acknowledged that several legal issues required detailed examination, including whether the government could reconstitute the Board at this stage.
The Court consequently referred both petitions to the Division Bench already dealing with related challenges to the Board’s composition.
The October 16 notification will therefore remain unstayed at this stage, with the broader legal dispute left for further consideration.