Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in Assembly of Christian Trust Services (ACTS) v. State of Kerala and Others and connected public interest litigations [WP(PIL) No. 135 of 2026 and connected cases], has passed a significant interim order restraining the Kerala State Waqf Board from taking any major policy decisions, incurring capital expenditure, or making important administrative decisions until the controversy surrounding its constitution is finally adjudicated. The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., which prima facie found that the present composition of the Board does not conform to the requirements of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, as amended.
The litigation arises from multiple Public Interest Litigations challenging the legality of the present Waqf Board. The petitioners alleged that the Board had not been constituted in accordance with the statutory mandate because two non-Muslim members, whose inclusion became mandatory after the 2025 amendment to the Waqf Act, had not been nominated. It was further contended that the Board also lacked representation from the Shia community and other communities such as Bohra and Aghakhani, despite the statutory requirement to provide adequate representation wherever applicable.
The controversy also extends to the disputed Munambam land, where one of the petitioners challenged the uploading of the property’s details on the Centre’s UMEED (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development) Portal. According to the petitioner, the Waqf Board had acted beyond its statutory authority by uploading the details, even though the Act empowers only the concerned Mutawalli to furnish such information.
During the hearing, the State Government itself acknowledged that there were infirmities in the constitution of the present Board. This admission, coupled with the statutory requirements under Section 14, prompted the High Court to intervene through an interim order to ensure that no irreversible decisions were taken by a Board whose legal validity is under judicial scrutiny. The Court clarified that until the issue is finally decided, the functioning of the Board would remain subject to judicial supervision.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that the present Kerala State Waqf Board had been constituted in clear violation of Section 14 of the Waqf Act as amended in 2025. They submitted that the amended law expressly requires the inclusion of two non-Muslim members, yet no such appointments had been made. It was further argued that the Board also failed to include a representative from the Shia community, thereby defeating the objective of ensuring balanced and inclusive representation in the administration of Waqf properties.
One of the principal petitioners, the Assembly of Christian Trust Services (ACTS), contended that the Board’s composition suffered from several additional defects. It argued that statutory representation for Bohra and Aghakhani communities had also not been ensured. ACTS further challenged the uploading of details relating to the disputed Munambam land on the UMEED Portal, submitting that such action directly affected the rights of Hindu and Christian residents of the area. According to the petitioner, only the Mutawalli is empowered under the Act to furnish such property details, and therefore the Board had acted without jurisdiction.
Another petitioner sought a declaration that the present Board was functioning illegally and requested the Court to direct the State Government to immediately nominate the mandatory non-Muslim members. It was also contended that several appointments to the Board were contrary to the statutory scheme and therefore the entire constitution of the Board deserved reconsideration.
Appearing for the State, Advocate General Jaju Babu informed the Court that an affidavit had been filed acknowledging certain deficiencies in the constitution of the Board. During the hearing, the Advocate General fairly conceded that the existing composition suffered from infirmities and indicated that the Government was prepared to undertake reconstitution of the Board in accordance with Section 14, subject to the directions of the Court. This admission assumed considerable importance during the proceedings because it amounted to an implicit acknowledgment that the statutory requirements had not been fully complied with.
Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni, appearing on behalf of the present Waqf Board, sought time to examine the State’s affidavit and defend the existing constitution. He conceded that two non-Muslim members had not yet been nominated but attempted to justify the omission by stating that the appointments had been deferred due to the pendency of related issues before the Supreme Court. However, this explanation was immediately disputed by the Additional Solicitor General of India and the petitioners, who submitted that no such proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court which could justify non-compliance with the statutory mandate.
The Court questioned the justification offered by the Board and observed that if the mandatory requirement regarding non-Muslim members itself had not been fulfilled, the Board’s continued functioning would become difficult to sustain, irrespective of the remaining issues concerning Shia representation.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions, the Kerala High Court found that the petitioners had established a strong prima facie case warranting interim protection.
The Division Bench observed that the admitted absence of two non-Muslim members from the Board constituted a serious departure from the requirements of Section 14 of the Waqf Act. The Court also took note of the contention that a Shia representative had not been included, further strengthening the challenge to the Board’s constitution. At the interim stage, the Bench concluded that the Board prima facie did not appear to have been constituted in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Recognising the possible consequences of permitting such a Board to continue exercising unrestricted statutory powers, the Court restrained it from taking any major policy decisions, incurring capital expenditure, or making significant administrative decisions without obtaining prior permission from the High Court. The Bench considered such restraint necessary to preserve the status quo until the legality of the Board’s constitution is finally determined.
The Court also directed the State Government to ensure that its representative serving as an ex-officio member of the Board is appointed strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. As an additional safeguard, the Court ordered that, for the time being, the affairs of the Board would function under the supervision of the Joint Secretary of the State Government dealing with Waqf matters, thereby ensuring continuity of essential administration without permitting the Board to exercise unfettered authority.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Soumen Sen observed that once the State itself had accepted the existence of deficiencies in the Board’s composition, it became necessary to examine whether the statutory mandate had been violated. The Court orally remarked that the absence of the mandatory non-Muslim members alone raised substantial doubts about the legality of the Board’s continued functioning and justified judicial intervention pending final adjudication.
Although the Board attempted to justify the omission by referring to the alleged pendency of matters before the Supreme Court, the Court was not persuaded, particularly after it was pointed out that no such proceedings were actually pending. This weakened the defence advanced on behalf of the Board and reinforced the Court’s prima facie conclusion that the statutory requirements had not been fulfilled.
Importantly, the High Court did not finally decide the legality of the Board’s constitution at this stage. Instead, it confined itself to granting interim relief designed to prevent irreversible administrative or financial decisions until the matter receives comprehensive consideration. The detailed reasons for the interim order are expected to be contained in the judgment that is yet to be released.
The interim order reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring that statutory bodies function strictly within the framework prescribed by law. By restricting the Board’s decision-making powers while allowing essential administrative functions to continue under government supervision, the Court sought to balance the need for uninterrupted administration of Waqf affairs with the equally important requirement that statutory authorities derive their legitimacy from lawful constitution.
The matter has now been posted for further hearing after one week, when the Court is expected to examine in greater detail the legality of the Board’s composition, the implications of the alleged violations of Section 14, and the reliefs sought in the connected public interest litigations. The outcome of these proceedings is likely to have significant implications for the governance of Waqf institutions in Kerala and for the interpretation of the amended provisions governing the composition of Waqf Boards across the country.