Appointment of Executive Officer Under Section 38 of Waqf Act Validated by Kerala High Court Due to Proven Financial Mismanagement - 2026-06-03

Law Updates Made Simple.

Guarding the Trust: Kerala High Court Upholds Board's Power to Intervene in Waqf Administration

In a significant ruling regarding the management of religious endowments, the High Court of Kerala has reinforced the supervisory authority of State Waqf Boards. The court upheld a decision directing the appointment of an Executive Officer for the Ayilakkad Mahallu Juma Masjid Palli Hayathul Islam Madrassa , affirming that the Board holds the power to intervene when there is prima facie evidence of financial irregularity and mismanagement.

A Disputed Administration

The case originated from a petition filed by beneficiaries before the Kerala State Wakf Board , alleging severe mismanagement, lack of transparency, and financial irregularities by the existing Mutawalli and the governing committee. The petitioners sought, among other things, the appointment of an Executive Officer to supervise day-to-day affairs.

While the Board initially dismissed the application, finding the discrepancies to be mere results of "ignorance in maintaining accounts in a scientific manner," the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode , later intervened. The Tribunal set aside the Board's order and mandated the appointment of a competent official, prompting the current appeal before Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S.

Arguments on the Bench

The appellants argued that the Tribunal’s decision was premature and overstepped into the merits of the original dispute pending before the Board. They maintained that the committee was functioning legally under registered bye-laws and that the "minor discrepancies" cited by inspectors did not warrant a takeover.

Contrarily, the respondents highlighted that the annual income of the institution had climbed steadily from approximately ₹7 lakh in 2016-17 to over ₹24 lakh by 2021-22. They argued that because the gross annual income exceeded the statutory threshold of ₹5 lakhs, the Board had not only the power but a duty to appoint an executive officer to ensure fiscal discipline.

Statutory Authority and Financial Reality

The High Court focused heavily on the interpretation of Section 38 of the Waqf Act, 1995 . The bench clarified a crucial distinction: the ₹5 lakh threshold for appointing an Executive Officer is based on gross annual income , not net income.

The court noted that despite a surge in reported income, expenditures were consistently adjusted by the management to ensure a near-nil net income. The discovery that "vouchers, receipts and ledgers were prepared just prior to the audit" proved to be a turning point, providing the court with sufficient grounds to uphold the intervention.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that the Board's role as a supervisor is not passive. Asserting the necessity for accountability, the court observed:

• "For the purpose of jurisdiction of the Board under Section 38 , what is relevant is the gross annual income. Only for the purpose of calculating the net income, the above-mentioned expenditures are relevant."
• "The non-production of genuine and actual receipts for the expenses before the auditor prima facie fortifies the contentions of respondents regarding improper management."
• "Being bound to supervise the proper management of the Wakfs under it, the Board ought to have exercised its power under Section 38 of the Waqf Act till a properly constituted committee was put in operation."

Practical Implications

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal cements the principle that administrative autonomy cannot be used as a shield against financial transparency. By validating the appointment of an Executive Officer, the court has signaled that when an institution's financial footprint expands, the level of oversight must scale accordingly to protect the sanctity of the Waqf's corpus.

Ultimately, the court allowed the Board to retain independence regarding the ongoing original petition, ensuring that the current appointment does not preclude a fair, future hearing on the permanent management structure of the institution.