The Kerala High Court on October 17, 2026, declined to stay the Kerala Government’s decision to reconstitute the Kerala State Waqf Board by nominating nine members. Justice S. Manu passed the interim order while considering two writ petitions challenging the government’s decision. However, the Court directed that the reconstitution would remain subject to the final outcome of the petitions.
Background
The petitions challenged Government Order G.O.(P) No. 318/2026/RD dated October 16, 2026, which superseded earlier notifications nominating members to the Waqf Board. The dispute arose amid pending public interest litigations questioning the Board’s composition under Section 14 of the Waqf Act.
The petitioners argued that the government lacked authority to cancel the existing appointments and reconstitute the Board in the manner adopted. They also raised concerns about compliance with statutory requirements, including the provisions governing the removal of members and the principles of natural justice.
The State defended its decision, contending that the earlier constitution of the Board had not complied with Section 14(6) of the Act, which concerns the determination of the relevant Muslim communities for representation. The government submitted that it had completed the required determination and nominated a member from the Bohra community.
It also relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud & Another, arguing that the power to appoint members includes the implied power to cancel their appointments.
Justice S. Manu examined earlier orders passed by the Division Bench in the pending public interest litigations. The Court noted that the Division Bench had left the government free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and had not expressly restrained it from reconstituting the Board.
The order observed:
“The Division Bench of this Court, apart from not forbidding the State Government from taking steps to ensure that constitution of the Board is in accordance with law, took note of willingness expressed by the State to reconstitute the Board.”
On the government’s authority to cancel earlier appointments, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling and held that, at the interim stage, it could not be said that the government lacked such authority.
The High Court rejected the request to stay the government order, finding that a stringent interim intervention was not warranted at this stage. However, it clarified:
“Hence the request to stay the operation of Ext P9 is rejected. Nevertheless, as formidable contentions which would require elaborate reflection are raised in these writ petitions, I direct that reconstitution of the Board by Ext.P9 shall be subject to the outcome of these writ petitions.”
The Court also directed that the writ petitions be placed before a Division Bench for hearing and determination, as the issues were closely connected with pending public interest litigations.
