The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has declined to grant an interim stay on the state government's decision to reconstitute the Kerala State Waqf Board, a move that replaced the previous board members, including the chairperson, less than seven months into their tenure. Presiding over a special sitting on Saturday, October 17, 2026, Justice S. Manu observed that while the reconstitution would proceed, the legal validity of the government’s order remains tethered to the final outcome of ongoing writ petitions.

The dispute stems from the government order G.O.(P) No. 318/2026/RD, issued on October 16, 2026, which effectively superseded two earlier notifications that had established the previous board. Under this new directive, nine members were appointed to oversee the administrative and quasi-judicial functions of the Waqf Board. The petitioners, including former chairperson K.S. Hamza, challenged this sudden dissolution, alleging that the executive branch had acted without statutory authorization and in contradiction to previous commitments made before the court regarding the filling of existing vacancies.

In its assessment, the court emphasized that the current legal challenge involves complex questions of law that demand deeper judicial reflection. Consequently, the High Court directed that the newly reconstituted Board must operate with the understanding that its existence and actions are subject to the final judgment of the court. To ensure a cohesive legal approach, Justice S. Manu invoked the powers under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act to refer the two writ petitions for hearing and determination by a Division Bench, where related Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are already pending.

The petitioners argued that the government’s action was marred by procedural impropriety, asserting that the authority to supersede a board is explicitly governed by Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995. They contended that such drastic measures require specific conditions to be met, including providing the existing members with a reasonable opportunity to show cause against their removal. Furthermore, the legal counsel for the petitioners highlighted the timing of the order—issued just days before a scheduled court holiday—as evidence of an attempt to bypass judicial scrutiny. They maintained that the government had previously represented to the Division Bench that its sole intention was to fill vacancies, rather than to undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the Board’s composition.

Conversely, the state government, represented by the Additional Advocate General, defended the reconstitution as a necessary administrative correction. The government argued that the previous board’s constitution lacked essential community representation, specifically failing to meet the requirements set forth in Section 14 of the Waqf Act. The state pointed to an ongoing process of determination under Section 14(6) of the Act, which necessitated a restructuring to ensure that diverse Muslim communities, including the Bohra and Shia groups, were adequately represented. The government argued that the previous nominations had been made without this necessary determination, rendering the earlier Board's constitution legally precarious.

Addressing the challenge to the government's authority to reconstitute the body, the State invoked the principle of implied power. The Additional Advocate General relied on the Supreme Court ruling in The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud & Another , arguing that the power to appoint naturally encompasses the power to revoke or cancel such appointments to ensure statutory compliance. The state maintained that the government was not invoking the supersession powers under Section 99 or removal powers under Section 20, but rather exercising its inherent authority to rectify the Board's composition in alignment with the Act’s mandate.

Justice S. Manu found that the Division Bench , in its previous orders dated August 19 and October 14, 2026 , had not prohibited the state from taking corrective action to ensure the board functioned in accordance with the law. In his order, Justice Manu noted: "It appears that 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." The court further observed that the government's submission to the Division Bench on October 14, 2026 , requesting time to complete the reconstitution process, was effectively acknowledged by the court.

The High Court held that the petitioners had not established a prima facie case for the grant of a stringent interim order of stay. The court concluded that: " Prima facie , I do not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that reconstitution of the Board is not in accordance with the submissions made before the Division Bench and orders passed in the PILs." While the request to block the operation of the order was denied, the court’s decision to keep the reconstitution subject to the outcome of the petitions serves as a significant caveat, ensuring that the legal challenges regarding the composition and authority of the Board remain active.

The reconstituted Board, led by the newly appointed chairperson, has since assumed office and commenced its administrative duties, including the first meeting held on the same day as the court’s order. The legal community expects that the matter will now be addressed comprehensively by the Division Bench, which is tasked with resolving the interconnected issues of Board composition, representation, and the extent of executive power under the Waqf Act. Until then, the newly appointed committee remains at the helm, managing the affairs of Waqf properties across the state while awaiting further judicial direction on the validity of their appointments. The final outcome will likely have broader implications for how the state manages the governance of Waqf institutions in the future.