Delhi HC Seeks Replies on Plea to Constitute Waqf Board

The Delhi High Court has sought the response of the Centre and the Delhi government to a petition seeking directions to complete the statutory process for constituting the Delhi Waqf Board.

Justice Anish Dayal issued notice to both governments on the plea, which asks that the Board be set up in line with the Waqf Act of 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The court granted four weeks to the authorities to file their replies and posted the matter for further hearing on December 10.

The petitioner, Mohd Shahid, has argued that no steps have been taken to constitute a fresh Board since the tenure of the last Delhi Waqf Board ended in August 2023. An administrator was appointed by the Delhi government in January 2024, but the Board itself remains unconstituted despite what the plea describes as a statutory mandate.

The petition contends that even after the 2025 amendment, Parliament has retained the obligation to constitute a Waqf Board for every State and Union Territory, and that the continued failure of the authorities amounts to a breach of that duty.

According to the plea, the prolonged absence of the Board has left valuable waqf properties in the capital exposed to risks of encroachment, unauthorised occupation, illegal alienation, misuse and deterioration. It further submits that public charitable institutions, mosques, graveyards, educational institutions and other waqf establishments dependent on statutory supervision have suffered prejudice, and that beneficiaries, including worshippers and members of the Muslim community, have been deprived of the safeguards envisaged by Parliament.

The petition also argues that executive authorities cannot, through prolonged inaction, allow a Parliamentary enactment to become ineffective, and that once Parliament has directed the constitution of a statutory Board, the respondents are bound to complete the process within a reasonable period. Failure to do so, it states, amounts to arbitrary executive inaction and a violation of the rule of law.

Lawyers Rizwan Ahmad, Feroz Khan Ghazi, Mohd. Wasiq Khan, Himanshu Gupta and Mohd. Shoaib Ansari represented the petitioner.