On Thursday, the Supreme Court intervened to suspend a ruling from the Madras High Court that had barred the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board from operating due to its failure to appoint two non-Muslim members.

The High Court's decision, made on January 8, indicated that the board did not comply with the legal requirement to include a Bar Council member and a professional expert, as reported by various news sources.

A waqf is a charitable endowment recognized under Islamic law, and each state has a waqf board responsible for managing such properties.

The 2025 Waqf Amendment Act revised Section 14 of the 1995 Unified Waqf Management Act, stipulating that two members of waqf boards must be non-Muslims and that a Bar Council member must be nominated.

During the hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi reviewed a petition from the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board.

Chief Justice Kant remarked that the High Court's ruling was incorrect, stating, “The order that rendered the board inactive is now stayed. The doctrine of necessity must apply here.”

This doctrine allows for certain actions to be justified in extraordinary circumstances.

Advocate P Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, informed the Supreme Court that eight members had already been appointed, with only three remaining to be nominated. He argued that the High Court's ruling prevented the board from functioning.

The Supreme Court requested updates on the remaining appointments for the next hearing.

The Waqf Amendment Bill of 2024 proposed changes to 44 sections of the 1995 Waqf Act, including provisions for non-Muslims on waqf boards, limitations on property donations, and modifications to the operation of waqf tribunals. This bill received parliamentary approval on April 4.

Prior to its approval, the draft was sent to a joint parliamentary committee in August 2024 due to opposition concerns.

In January 2025, the committee approved the bill after incorporating suggestions from members of the ruling coalition, while rejecting amendments proposed by opposition lawmakers.

The revised bill was adopted following a vote, with 15 votes in favor and 11 against.

Critics argue that the Waqf Amendment Act discriminates against Muslims and disrupts the management of waqf properties. The government, however, defends the legislation as a measure to prevent the misuse of waqf provisions.

Several petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act have been filed in the Supreme Court. In September, the court stated that there was insufficient justification to suspend the entire amendment, although it did put several provisions on hold, including one requiring that a waqf creator must have been a practicing Muslim for at least five years.

The court also ruled that the number of non-Muslim members on the Central Waqf Council cannot exceed four, and state waqf boards are limited to three non-Muslim members.

The Central Waqf Council consists of 22 members, while state waqf boards have 11 members.