The Kerala government's stand before the High Court supporting the reconstitution of the state Waqf Board under the amended Waqf law has sparked a political controversy.
"The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has cheated the Muslim community," Kerala Waqf Board chairperson KS Hamsa alleged on Friday, July 17, accusing the party of taking contradictory positions on the amended Waqf law.
The Kerala government backed the reconstitution of the Board before the High Court while simultaneously challenging the same provisions before the Supreme Court.
The remarks came as the Kerala Waqf Board approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's interim order restraining it from taking major policy decisions. The Board argued that the order had virtually paralysed its functioning and sought an immediate stay.
“The IUML has betrayed the Muslim community. The party has challenged the provision for appointing non-Muslims to Waqf Boards before the Supreme Court, and that case is still pending. Yet, when a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking the dissolution of the Kerala Waqf Board for not having two non-Muslim members, the state government of which the IUML is a part supported that plea,” Hamsa told reporters in Delhi.
The controversy intensified as Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan accused the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government of abandoning its earlier opposition to the amendments.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the Board's challenge early next week after the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the matter following an urgent mention.
Addressing a press conference on Friday, Pinarayi alleged that the UDF government had aligned itself with the Union government's position on the amended Waqf law.
“Although the Centre enacted these amendments, several non-BJP-ruled states opposed them. So far, only BJP-ruled states have included non-Muslim members in their Waqf Boards. Now, the Kerala government is moving in the same direction,” he said.
He said that, traditionally, religious institutions in India are administered by members of their respective faiths. “This has long been accepted as part of the country's secular framework. However, the Sangh Parivar has sought to alter this by mandating the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, which oversee matters relating exclusively to the Muslim community. If this principle is applied to Muslims today, it could eventually be extended to institutions of other religions as well,” Pinarayi Vijayan said.
He alleged that now the IUML and Congress had reversed their stand on this issue. “When the amendments were introduced, the LDF government passed a resolution opposing them, and the UDF, including the Congress and the IUML, supported that resolution. However, the same parties have now informed the High Court that the amended provisions will be implemented.”
Pinarayi said that the Kerala government submitted a statement before the High Court on July 14, declaring that it was prepared to reconstitute the Board in strict compliance with Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act.
The controversy follows an interim order passed by the Kerala High Court on July 15, restraining the Kerala State Waqf Board from taking major policy decisions, incurring capital expenditure or exercising significant administrative powers without prior permission from the court.
The order was issued while a division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice VM Syam Kumar heard four PILs challenging the constitution of the Board under the amended law. The court observed, prima facie, that the Board had not been constituted in accordance with the amended Act as it did not include two non-Muslim members and one Shia member, as required under the new provisions.
One of the petitions, filed by BJP leader Shone George, sought directions to the state government to appoint two non-Muslim members to the Board. Another challenged the appointment of CPI(M) leader KS Hamsa as the Board's chairperson.
Meanwhile, Waqf Board chairperson KS Hamsa criticised both the High Court's order and the state's position during the proceedings. Describing the interim order as contrary to the provisions of the Act, Hamsa said it had left the Board with no option but to approach the Supreme Court.
Hamsa further claimed that while the Advocate General informed the High Court that the government supported the petition, a written statement filed on behalf of the government sought dismissal of the same petition. "How can the government take two contradictory positions in the same case?" he asked.
In its petition before the Supreme Court, the Waqf Board has argued that the High Court's interim order has effectively paralysed its functioning. It contended that the High Court ignored provisions of the Waqf law which state that vacancies or defects in the Board's composition do not invalidate its proceedings.
The Board has maintained that appointments to vacant positions are exclusively the responsibility of the state government and that it cannot be held responsible for vacancies beyond its control. It has also argued that only the state government has the statutory power to supersede a Waqf Board after following the procedure laid down in law and that the restrictions imposed by the High Court have had a similar effect without following those safeguards.
The Board has also claimed that it was not given an adequate opportunity to present its arguments before the interim order was passed.
Seeking an immediate stay on the High Court's order, the Board has told the Supreme Court that it oversees more than 89,000 Waqf properties, conducts around 200 hearings every week and is involved in hundreds of pending cases before Waqf Tribunals, the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. It argued that the restrictions would significantly affect the administration of Waqf institutions and the discharge of its statutory functions across the state.
However, IUML leader PMA Salam denied that the UDF government had supported the petition before the High Court. He said the government's submission was limited to examining whether the Board had been constituted in accordance with the law.
"Our stand was only that if there were any legal or technical lapses in the constitution of the Board, the government would examine them. We never said that we would appoint non-Muslim members to the Waqf Board," Salam said.
Reiterating the IUML's position, he said religious institutions should be administered by members of the respective faiths. "Just as Muslims cannot be appointed to Devaswom Boards or church bodies, non-Muslims should not be appointed to the Waqf Board. That continues to be the IUML's stand," he said.