Madras High Court Halts Functioning Of State Waqf Board For Non-Inclusion Of Two Non-Muslim Members

The High Court was considering a challenge to the constitution of the Waqf Board on the ground that the same was neither complete nor in accordance with the mandate of law as contained in Section 14 of the Act.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, “Furthermore, the mandate of second proviso that two of the total members of the Board appointed under Sub-section (1), excluding ex-offico Member, shall be non-muslim has also been not fulfilled. May be, in future, while appointing one out of two Members under Clause (d) and one under Clause (f), respondents may proceed to appoint two non-Muslims. The constitution of the Board as exists today, prima facie is not in accordance with the provisions of law.”

“In view of the above, the Board cannot be allowed to exercise any powers and functions under the Act. The Board is hereby restrained from exercising any powers and functions”, it further ordered.

Senior Counsel S.Ravi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate General P.S.Raman represented the Respondent.

Arguments

The challenge was laid by the petitioners that the ground that one out of two persons as mandated in Clause (d) of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 had not been nominated. One Member of the Bar Council as mandated in Clause (f) of Section 14 was not nominated and the mandate of second proviso that two of the total members of the Bar appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 14, excluding ex officio Members, should be non-Muslim had not been complied with.

It was the case of the Advocate General and the counsel appearing for the second respondent that since two Members, who were appointed under the earlier regime of law, were continuing under the enabling provisions of the new Act, for the purpose of working out two non-Muslim members, they could not be included.

Reasoning

The Bench made a reference to the judgment of the Apex Court In Re. The Wakf Amendment Act (2025), where a direction was passed that the Central Waqf Council should not have non-Muslim members exceeding 4 in number, and 3 non-Muslim members insofar as the Board is concerned.

The Bench stated, “From a bare reading of the provisions, it is crystal clear that in order to complete the constitution of the Board under Section 14 of Act, there has to be at least two persons nominated under Clause (d) and one person nominated under Clause (f). It appears that under Clause (d), only one person has been nominated, whereas there is no nomination of any Member of the Bar Council of the State under Clause (f).”

The Bench also found that the mandate of the second proviso that two of the total members of the Board appointed under Sub-section (1), excluding ex-offico Member, shall be non-muslim was also not fulfilled. The Bench thus restrained the Board from exercising any powers and functions. Considering that the Advocate General prayed for a short time to file a reply, the Bench stated, “Reply may be filed before the next hearing.”

The matter has now been listed on January 19, 2026.

Cause Title: Y. Shoukath Ali Mohamed v. The State Of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: W.P.No.49241 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Counsel S.Ravi, Purushothamman.M

Respondent: Advocate General P.S.Raman, Additional Government Pleader E.Vijay Anand, Senior Counsel P.Wilson, Advocate Richardson Wilson, Senior Panel Counsel V.T.Balaji

Click here to read/download Order