Kerala Waqf Board reconstitution: Pinarayi Vijayan accuses UDF govt of ‘surrendering to Sangh Parivar diktats’

The controversy surrounding the reconstitution of the Kerala Waqf Board under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, opens a critical window into the complex interplay between Centre-State relations, minority rights, and electoral politics in India. To understand the current friction, we must first appreciate the historical and constitutional architecture governing Waqf properties. Waqf, an Islamic endowment of property for religious or charitable purposes, has been administered in India through a layered legal framework. The Waqf Act, 1995, enacted by Parliament under Entry 28 of the Concurrent List (List III), provided for the establishment of State Waqf Boards to manage these assets. Kerala, with its significant Muslim population and over 30,000 registered Waqf properties valued at thousands of crores, has one of the most active Waqf Boards in the country. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament in the recent budget session, introduces far-reaching changes — most notably, the inclusion of non-Muslim members in State Waqf Boards and enhanced central oversight through the Central Waqf Council. The Union Government argues these reforms bring transparency, prevent encroachment, and ensure professional management. However, critics, including the Congress-led UDF in Kerala, view this as a direct assault on Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. They argue that Waqf administration is intrinsically tied to Muslim religious identity and that state interference — especially through a centrally amended law — violates the secular ethos enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 25–30. The political stakes are enormous. Kerala heads to Assembly elections in 2026, and the LDF government’s decision to implement the amended Act — despite ideological opposition to the BJP-led Centre’s “majoritarian agenda” — has been branded a betrayal by the UDF. Opposition Leader V.D. Satheesan’s charge that the CM has “surrendered to Sangh Parivar diktats” reflects a broader narrative: that regional parties are compromising minority rights under central pressure. This mirrors tensions in other states like West Bengal and Assam, where Waqf reforms have sparked similar debates. Constitutionally, the issue hinges on the distribution of legislative powers. While “Waqfs” fall under Entry 28 of the State List (List II), Parliament enacted the 1995 Act under the Concurrent List, and the 2025 Amendment was passed without referring it to the states — raising questions about federal overreach. The Supreme Court, in past rulings like the 2004 *M. Ismail Faruqui* case, has upheld state regulation of religious endowments but emphasized non-interference in essential religious practices. The 2025 Amendment may soon face judicial scrutiny on whether mandatory non-Muslim representation constitutes such interference. Economically, Waqf properties represent a vast, underutilized asset base. Proper management could fund education, healthcare, and welfare for marginalized Muslim communities — aligning with the Sachar Committee (2006) and Kundu Committee (2014) recommendations. Politically, the controversy deepens the trust deficit between minorities and the state, potentially influencing voting behaviour not just in Kerala but nationally. Looking ahead, three trajectories are possible: (1) The Kerala government may challenge the Amendment in the Supreme Court, invoking Article 131 (original jurisdiction for Centre-State disputes); (2) The Centre may issue model rules pressuring other states to comply, escalating federal tensions; (3) A political compromise may emerge, with the LDF seeking exemptions or delayed implementation. For aspirants, this case study encapsulates the enduring struggle to balance uniform governance with pluralistic autonomy — a defining challenge of Indian federalism.