NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has sought response from the central government, and others on a petition to constitute the Delhi Waqf Board.
Justice Anish Dayal issued notice to the governments on a petition, which sought to complete the statutory process for constitution of the Board in accordance with the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The petition claimed that after the expiry of the tenure of the last Delhi Waqf Board in August 2023, “no steps have been taken by authorities concerned for the constitution of a fresh Board”. It argued that the Delhi government appointed an administrator in January 2024, but the board was still not constituted despite being required by law.
In an order passed on September 8, the judge granted four weeks to the central government and Delhi government to file their replies. The court will further hear the matter on December 10.
“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 petition alleged.
It added, “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.”
The petition added that 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. Executive authorities cannot, by prolonged inaction, permit a Parliamentary enactment to become ineffective," the petition mentioned.
"Once Parliament has directed the 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," the petition claimed.
