The Kerala High Court has declined to stay the Kerala government’s order reconstituting the State Waqf Board, allowing the new panel to remain in place while petitions challenging the move are considered by a division bench. The court clarified that the reconstitution will remain subject to the final outcome of pending public interest litigations on the board’s legal constitution.
Justice S Manu, sitting in a special session on Saturday, referred petitions filed by former chairman K M Hamza and others to the division bench already hearing the PILs. The petitions challenge the government order dated October 16, which removed all members of the existing board, including Hamza, and appointed a new panel headed by M C Mayin Haji, state vice-president of the Indian Union Muslim League.
The legal dispute concerns both the government’s authority to replace the board and the statutory composition of the institution responsible for administering Waqf properties in Kerala. The pending PILs allege that the previous board was constituted in violation of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. One issue raised before the court relates to the inclusion of non-Muslim members, as well as representation for the Bohra community.
The petitioners argued that the state government did not have the power to supersede the existing board through the impugned order. Senior counsel also told the court that the government had earlier assured the division bench in the pending PILs that it would only fill vacancies in accordance with Section 14 of the Waqf Act. According to the petitioners, the government nevertheless issued the reconstitution order on the eve of court holidays.
The additional advocate general opposed the request for an interim stay. The government’s position was that it had exercised an implied power to cancel the earlier appointments in order to ensure that the board complied with statutory requirements, including the required representation of the Bohra community and the nomination of non-Muslim members.
After hearing both sides, the single bench noted that the division bench had not restrained the government from taking appropriate steps to ensure the board’s lawful constitution. On that basis, it declined to suspend the October 16 order at the interim stage.
The ruling does not finally settle whether the government was entitled to reconstitute the board or whether the previous panel complied with the amended statutory requirements. The new board’s position will continue to be subject to the final decision in the pending PILs before the division bench.
