The High Court of Kerala has declined to grant an interim stay on the state government’s decision to reconstitute the Kerala State Waqf Board , a move that resulted in the removal of the previous chairperson and members less than seven months into their tenure. Justice S. Manu, presiding over a special sitting on October 17, 2026 , determined that the state government acted within its implied authority when issuing the notification G.O.(P) No. 318/2026/RD on October 16, 2026 . While the court refused to halt the immediate operation of the order, it mandated that the new appointments remain strictly subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petitions .

The litigation, brought forward by former board chairperson K.S. Hamza and others, challenged the government’s power to supersede previous notifications under which the earlier board had been formed. The government's decision to dissolve the board and appoint nine new members, including newly designated chairperson M.C. Mayin Haji, drew sharp criticism from the petitioners, who argued that the action lacked statutory authorization and failed to observe the principles of natural justice .

Disputed Authority and Statutory Compliance

The core of the legal dispute revolved around the scope of the government’s power to reconstitute a statutory body without explicit enabling provisions in the governing Act. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the government had disregarded the specific procedural requirements outlined in the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 . They argued that the powers under Section 99—which deals with the supersession of a board—require a specific show-cause process that was not followed, and that the removal of members under Section 20 was equally procedurally flawed.

Furthermore, the petitioners alleged that the government had misled the court during earlier proceedings before a Division Bench of the High Court . They claimed the state had previously undertaken to simply fill existing vacancies to ensure compliance with the Act, yet instead took the drastic measure of dissolving the board entirely just days before a scheduled court recess. This, they argued, was a calculated attempt to bypass judicial scrutiny.

In contrast, the State Government, represented by the Additional Advocate General, defended the action as a necessary corrective measure. The State maintained that the previous board’s constitution was fundamentally flawed due to the failure to undertake the requisite determination process under Section 14(6) of the Act. By reconstitution, the government argued, it had finally ensured proportional representation for diverse communities, including the Bohra community. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud & Another , the State asserted that the power to appoint naturally includes the implied power to cancel previous appointments to ensure that the board acts in full harmony with statutory mandates.

Judicial Observations on Reconstitution

Justice Manu carefully weighed the submissions against the backdrop of earlier orders passed by the Division Bench in public interest litigations (PILs). The court observed that, contrary to the petitioners' claims, the Division Bench had not imposed an absolute restraint on the government regarding the constitution of the board. In its order dated October 14, 2026 , the Division Bench had specifically acknowledged the state’s request to adjourn proceedings to facilitate the completion of the reconstitution process.

"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 noted. Regarding the authority to cancel the previous nominations, Justice Manu stated, "Hence, it cannot be said that the Government has no authority to cancel the appointments made by Exts.P1 and P2. Hence, prima facie it appears that the Government has invoked its implied power to revoke the appointments made by Ext.P1 by issuing Ext.P9."

Procedural Next Steps

The court’s decision to allow the new board to function while maintaining legal oversight through the ongoing writ petitions marks a critical phase in the long-standing management dispute. Although the request for an immediate stay was rejected, the court acknowledged the weight of the constitutional questions raised by the petitioners.

"I am of the view that no case is made out to pass a stringent interim order staying the operation of Ext.P9," Justice Manu held. "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 ."

Because the issues presented in these petitions are deeply intertwined with the broader legal challenges pending in various public interest litigations , the High Court has exercised its powers under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act to refer the current petitions to the Division Bench. The new board members, including M.C. Mayin Haji and the other appointees, have already assumed their roles. Their operational authority, however, remains contingent upon the final verdict of the Division Bench, which will now determine whether the state's move to dissolve and reform the Waqf Board fully aligns with the rigorous requirements of the Waqf Act. Until then, the reconstituted board remains in place under the court's watchful gaze.