New Delhi, Sep 11 The Delhi High Court has sought the stand of the Centre and the city administration on a plea to constitute the Delhi Waqf Board.
Justice Anish Dayal issued notice to the governments on a petition seeking directions to them to complete the statutory process for constitution of the Board in accordance with the Waqf Act of 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The petitioner's lawyer contended that after the expiry of the tenure of the last Delhi Waqf Board in August 2023, no steps have been taken for constitution of a fresh Board.
In the meantime, an administrator was appointed in January 2024 by the Delhi government, but the board was yet to constituted despite a statutory mandate, it was argued.
On September 8, Justice Dayal gave four weeks to the Delhi government and Centre to file their replies.
The petitioner, Mohd Shahid, said in his plea that even after the 2025 amendment, Parliament has retained the statutory obligation to constitute a Waqf Board for every State and Union Territory, and the continued failure of the authorities to constitute the Board was, therefore, a breach of the statutory obligation imposed on them.
The plea alleged that the prolonged absence of the Board has exposed valuable waqf properties situated in the capital to serious risks of encroachment, unauthorised occupation, illegal alienation, misuse and deterioration.
"Public charitable institutions, mosques, graveyards, educational institutions and other waqf establishments dependent upon proper statutory supervision have suffered irreparable prejudice. The beneficiaries of such waqfs, including worshippers and members of the Muslim community, have been deprived of the statutory safeguards envisaged by Parliament," the petition submitted.
"Executive authorities cannot, by prolonged inaction, permit a Parliamentary enactment to become ineffective. Once Parliament has directed constitution of a
statutory Board, the respondents are constitutionally bound to complete the statutory process within a reasonable period. Failure to do so amounts to arbitrary executive inaction and constitutes a direct violation of the Rule of Law," it stated.
Lawyers Rizwan Ahmad, Feroz Khan Ghazi, Mohd. Wasiq Khan, Himanshu Gupta and Mohd. Shoaib Ansari represented the petitioner.
The matter would be heard next on December 10.
