Kochi: High court on Wednesday, observing that the constitution of the Kerala State Waqf Board was prima facie not in conformity with the amended Waqf Act, 2025, ordered that the present board shall not take any major or policy decisions or incur any capital expenditure without its permission.A bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V M Syam Kumar passed the order while considering four PILs, including one filed by BJP leader Shone George, challenging the newly constituted Kerala State Waqf Board for the non-inclusion of two non-Muslim members as mandated under the amended Act. In the remaining three petitions, Stalin Devan challenged the inclusion of former MLA Kunhammed Kutty, a CPM functionary, as a board member, while Sajid Hussain Khatai of Fort Kochi challenged the non-inclusion of a Shia member. Meanwhile, a petition filed by the Assembly of Christian Trust Services (ACTS) challenged not only the absence of non-Muslim members but also the inclusion of the disputed 404-acre Munambam land in the UMEED portal, the central govt’s database of waqf properties.The petitioners also questioned the inclusion of the additional secretary of law department as an ex officio member of the board, contending that it violated the statutory requirement, which envisages the nomination of a joint secretary to the govt from a department dealing with waqf matters. Revenue department under secretary B Pushpavally filed a statement on behalf of the state govt stating that the govt was prepared to reconstitute the board strictly in compliance with the amended Section 14 of the Act.Counsel for the board contended that the two non-Muslim members could not be nominated in view of the pendency of matters relating to the amended Waqf Act before the Supreme Court. However, the additional solicitor general disputed the contention, submitting that no such issue was pending before the apex court. After considering the rival submissions, the court observed that the admitted non-inclusion of two non-Muslim members in the board, coupled with the non-inclusion of a Shia member, as alleged by one of the petitioners, prima facie indicated that the constitution of the present board was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. HC posted the petitions to July 22.
