Supreme Court Removes Kerala High Court’s Direction Placing State Waqf Board Under Government Officer’s Supervision
The Supreme Court has set aside an interim direction issued by the Kerala High Court that required the Kerala State Waqf Board to function under the supervision of a Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary of the State Government. Holding that such an arrangement was unwarranted at the interim stage, the apex court modified the High Court’s order while directing that the underlying writ proceedings be decided expeditiously on their merits.
The dispute arose from pending public interest litigations before the Kerala High Court concerning the functioning of the Kerala State Waqf Board. In an interim order, the High Court had restrained the Board from taking major policy decisions, incurring significant capital expenditure or implementing important administrative measures. It had additionally directed that the Board’s functioning would remain subject to the supervision of a senior government officer holding the rank of Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary.
Challenging this supervisory arrangement before the Supreme Court, the Kerala State Waqf Board contended that the High Court’s direction effectively placed a statutory autonomous body under executive control without any statutory basis. The Board argued that while courts may impose reasonable interim safeguards, requiring day-to-day supervision by a government official interfered with the independence contemplated under the Waqf Act and altered the statutory framework governing the Board’s administration.
Accepting this contention to a significant extent, the Supreme Court deleted the portion of the High Court’s order that subjected the Board to supervision by the government’s Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary. However, the Court did not disturb the other interim safeguards restraining the Board from taking major policy decisions or undertaking substantial capital expenditure until the High Court finally adjudicates the pending petitions. In effect, while the Board regains its statutory autonomy from executive supervision, the restrictions on major policy and financial decisions continue to remain in force.
The Supreme Court also requested the Kerala High Court to dispose of the pending matters at the earliest, recognising that prolonged interim arrangements should not substitute a final judicial determination. By directing an expeditious hearing, the apex court sought to ensure that questions relating to the composition and functioning of the Waqf Board are conclusively resolved after hearing all stakeholders.
The ruling underscores an important principle of administrative law: although constitutional courts possess wide powers to issue interim directions for preserving the subject matter of litigation, such directions ordinarily should not result in placing an independent statutory authority under executive supervision unless expressly authorised by law or justified by exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court’s intervention preserves the Kerala High Court’s power to regulate the Board’s functioning through interim restraints while reaffirming the statutory autonomy of the Waqf Board pending final adjudication.
