The petitioners argued the Board is functioning despite alleged flaws in its constitution, claiming the amended law requires two non-Muslim members who are yet to be nominated.
Alagiri alleged that the amendments were designed to create communal unrest and urged the Supreme Court to ensure just provisions in its final verdict.
While Justice Khanna intended to protect the concept of ‘waqf by user’ at least partially, the interim verdict upheld the provision to axe ‘waqf by user’ prospectively
