In a petition filed before the Madras High Court to challenge the constitution of Waqf Board on the grounds that the constitution was neither complete nor in accordance with the mandate of law, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan restrained the Waqf Board from exercising any powers and functions for presently not being constituted in accordance with law.
The challenge was made as one out of the two persons mandated in Section 14 (d) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (‘Act’) had not been nominated. One Bar Council Member as per Section 14 (f) had also not been nominated and because the mandate of the second proviso stating two of the total members of the Bar appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 14, excluding ex-officio Members, shall be non-Muslim had not been complied with.
The Court referred to Section 14 as well as In Re: The Wakf Amendment Act, 2025 (1) [W.P. (Civil) No. 276 of 2025 dated 15-09-2025] and found it to be clear that to complete the constitution of the Board, there had to be at least two persons nominated under Clause (d) and one person nominated under Clause (f). However, the Court noted that at present only person had been nominated under Clause (d) and none had been nominated under Clause (f).
It was noted that the mandate of appointing two non-muslim members had also not been fulfilled and the Court held that the constitution of the Board presently was not in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, the Court restrained the Board from exercising any powers and functions under the Act.
The matter is now listed on 19-01-2026.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. S. Ravi (Senior Counsel) for Mr. Purushothamman .M
For Respondent(s) – Mr. P. S. Raman (Advocate General) assisted by Mr. E. Vijay Anand (AGP), Mr. P. Wilson (Senior Counsel) for Mr. Richardson Wilson, Mr. V. T. Balaji (Senior Panel Counsel)
