New PIL Challenges Constitution of Kerala State Waqf Board
A public interest litigation bearing number WP(PIL) 139 of 2026 has been instituted before the Kerala High Court by Stalin V.M., a retired Junior Warrant Officer of the Indian Air Force and former Under Secretary in the Finance Department of the Government of Kerala. The petitioner describes himself as a public‑spirited individual engaged in supporting residents and supporting the residents and landowners affected by the Munambam land dispute.
The petition, moved through advocate Lakshmi Sreedhar, contests the constitution of the State Waqf Board as notified by government order dated 2 February 2026. According to the pleading, the order nominated nine of the eleven members of the Board. The petitioner alleges that the nomination process contravenes several mandatory requirements of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013 as subsequently amended.
One of the central objections raised in the petition concerns the inclusion of Kunhammed Kutty Master, a former MLA affiliated with the CPI(M) and a politician who had served in the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The petition states that Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Waqf Act requires that a member of the State Legislature be nominated by the government to fill a reserved seat. It further contends that Kunhammed Kutty Master was nominated for a five‑year term just two months before the expiry of his term as an MLA. At the time of nomination, it was evident that his legislative tenure would lapse within two months and there was no guarantee of his re‑election. Following the subsequent Assembly elections, he ceased to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly, yet he continues to hold office on the Waqf Board. The petition argues that his continuance on the Board after the loss of the qualification that formed the basis of his nomination is legally unsustainable.
The petition also challenges the overall composition of the Board on the ground that the government order fails to satisfy the statutory mandate for inclusivity. The amended Waqf Act stipulates that the Board must include two non‑Muslim members and representation from various Muslim sub‑communities, namely Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Aghakhani and other backward classes among Muslims. The petitioner asserts that the nominated members do not meet these requirements, thereby rendering the appointment invalid.
In addition to the substantive objections, the petition seeks a series of reliefs. It prays for a direction to the State Government to reconstitute the Waqf Board in strict conformity with the Waqf Act. It further requests that the government orders nominating the present members be quashed. The petition also seeks an order setting aside all decisions taken by the Board since its constitution and a restraint prohibiting the Board from exercising any statutory powers until a lawful reconstitution is effected. The same reliefs are sought as interim measures pending final adjudication.
The matter is presently pending before the Kerala High Court. No interim order or observation from the bench has been recorded in the available excerpt. The petition remains under consideration, and the court will be required to examine the allegations of non‑compliance with statutory provisions and the consequent impact on the validity of the Board’s actions.