The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala State Waqf Board not to take any major policy decisions or incur capital expenditure until it rules on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Board’s constitution.

The interim order came while the court was hearing petitions that questioned whether the Board had been constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act. The petitioners argued that the state government failed to follow the statutory requirements while appointing members to the Board.

The court observed that, at first glance, the composition of the Board appeared to be inconsistent with the legal provisions governing its constitution. It noted that two non-Muslim members, whose inclusion is mandated under the Act, had not been appointed. The court also pointed out that representation for the Shia community was absent, raising concerns over whether the Board had been constituted in compliance with the law.

The petitions further alleged that several categories entitled to representation under the Act had been left out. According to the petitioners, the Board does not include members from the Bohra and Aghakhani communities, nor does it provide representation for Other Backward Classes among the Muslim community as required. They also claimed that some of the individuals appointed to represent specific categories did not possess the qualifications prescribed for those positions.

During the proceedings, the state government informed the High Court that it had reviewed the concerns raised in the petitions. In a statement filed before the court on July 14, the government acknowledged the deficiencies pointed out and stated that it was willing to reconstitute the Kerala State Waqf Board in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.

Taking note of the submissions made by both sides, the High Court directed the Board to refrain from making significant policy decisions or undertaking capital expenditure until further orders. The interim restriction is intended to ensure that no major administrative or financial decisions are taken by the present Board while its legal validity remains under judicial scrutiny.