The Kerala High Court has restrained the State Waqf Board from taking any policy decision or incurring capital expenditure without the Court's express leave, until it is reconstituted in compliance with Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended by the United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 2025).

The Court held that the current constitution of the Board, which does not include two non-Muslim members and a representative from the Shia community, prima facie falls short of the statutory mandate, and directed that the Board shall, in the interim, function under the supervision of the Joint Secretary to the State Government dealing with Waqf matters.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed, “…the constitution of the Board, prima facie, appears to be not in conformity with Section 14 of the Act of 1995…Under the circumstances, the present Board shall not take any policy decision or incur any capital expenditure without the express leave of this Court”.

“…The Board shall, for the time being, function under the supervision of the Joint Secretary to the State Government dealing with Waqf matters”, it further directed.

Senior Advocates S. Sanal Kumar, Santhosh Mathew and P. B. Krishnan appeared for the Petitioners in the batch of cases while Advocate General K.Jaju Babu appeared for the State and Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni appeared for Waqf Board.

The batch of PIL petitions challenges notifications dated February 4, 2026 and March 13, 2026 relating to the constitution of the State Waqf Board. The petitioners contended that the Board, as constituted, does not include two non-Muslim members as required by law, and that the Secretary appointed by the Government is not the Joint Secretary to the State Government dealing with Waqf matters, who is required to be an ex-officio member under the statute.

During the hearing, the second respondent placed on record a statement acknowledging the need to reconstitute the Board in strict compliance with Section 14 of the Act. Counsel for the Waqf Board sought an adjournment, submitting that the statement had not yet been received, and further contended that non-Muslim members could not have been appointed in view of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Additional Solicitor General for India, appearing for the Union, opposed this position, submitting that the Board's stance was untenable since no court had interdicted the operation of Section 14, and that the statutory mandate must be followed absent any such restraint.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court's judgment dated September 15 2025 decided along with a batch of connected matters, did not interdict Section 14 of the Waqf Act. On this basis, the Bench found that the exclusion of non-Muslim members and a Shia community representative rendered the Board's present constitution prima facie inconsistent with Section 14.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the Board shall not take any policy decision or incur capital expenditure without its express leave, and that the State must ensure appointment of the Government's representative in accordance with the Act. The Board was directed to function, in the meantime, under the supervision of the Joint Secretary handling Waqf matters. Notice was ordered to be issued to non-appearing respondents, and parties were directed to file law notes before the next hearing on July 22, 2026. An application for correction of a prayer in one of the petitions was also allowed.

Cause Title: Shone George v. State Of Kerala & Others WP(PIL) No. 117 of 2026

Appearances:

Petitioner: Shinto Mathew Abraham, Adil M.H., Joseph Joy, Sr. ADG Sanal Kumar, Lakshmi Sreedhar, Santhosh Mathew, Senior Advocate

Respondent: Government Pleader, P.M.Saneer, Spl.G.P. To Addl.A.G., K.Jaju Babu, Advocate General

Click here to read/download the Order



Tags: