The Delhi High Court has directed the Union and Delhi governments to clarify their stand regarding the prolonged delay in constituting the Delhi Waqf Board, issuing notices on a petition that challenges the continued administrative vacancy.
Justice Anish Dayal issued the order on September 8, granting both governments four weeks to submit their formal replies. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 10.
Statutory Obligations Under the Amended Law
The petition, filed by Mohd Shahid, seeks a judicial directive instructing the authorities to complete the statutory process required to establish a fresh board in accordance with the Waqf Act of 1995, as amended by the Waqf Act, 2025. The petitioner is represented by a legal team comprising Rizwan Ahmad, Feroz Khan Ghazi, Mohd. Wasiq Khan, Himanshu Gupta, and Mohd. Shoaib Ansari.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the previous Delhi Waqf Board reached the end of its tenure in August 2023, and no formal measures have since been undertaken to reconstitute the body. While the Delhi administration appointed an administrator to oversee functions in January 2024, the petition noted that the statutory board itself remains absent.
According to the plea, Parliament retained the mandatory requirement for every State and Union Territory to establish a Waqf Board under the 2025 amendments. The petitioner submitted that the ongoing failure to constitute the body constitutes a direct breach of this statutory duty.
Vulnerability of Capital Waqf Assets
The petition contended that the extended absence of an elected oversight board has left valuable waqf holdings across the national capital vulnerable to illegal alienation, encroachment, unauthorized occupation, misuse, and physical neglect.
The plea noted that mosques, graveyards, educational centers, and public charitable institutions that rely on formal regulatory supervision have suffered severe prejudice. It further stated that beneficiaries, worshippers, and members of the Muslim community have been denied the legal safeguards intended by Parliament.
The petition added that executive bodies cannot permit parliamentary enactments to fall into disuse through persistent inaction. It maintained that authorities remain constitutionally obligated to conclude the statutory process within a reasonable timeframe, asserting that protracted executive inaction is arbitrary and undermines the rule of law.
