Asking for transparency is not an attack on Waqf boards. It helps the institutions too

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is one of the most hotly debated topics in recent years. Now, the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the Kerala High Court’s restriction on the state Waqf board has brought the amended law back into public debate.

The Court has not yet decided whether the Board’s composition is legal. That question will be answered later. But its refusal to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s interim order has ensured that the debate over the implementation of the amended Waqf Act is far from over.The dispute is about the new requirement of two non-Muslim members in a Waqf board. The Kerala High Court found the issue serious enough to stop the Board from taking major policy decisions until the final verdict. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it left that part of the High Court’s order untouched. It removed only the requirement that the Board function under the supervision of a senior state government official, while allowing the other restrictions to continue.

The order has done little to settle the political debate. The BJP sees it as the judiciary’s support for the amended law, while the Opposition points out that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the Act.The problem is that every attempt to reform the Waqf administration—a question of governance—quickly turns into a debate about identity. Muslim leadership, consisting of the Ashraf elite, portray any changes to Waqf laws as an attack on religious freedom or on the community itself. On the other hand, the BJP’s political messaging gives the impression that Waqf boards cannot be trusted to function on their own, requiring greater government oversight and the presence of non-Muslim members. I understand the need for government insight. It is necessary for every institution—checks and balances are always needed—but it’s less obvious how statutory inclusion of non-Muslim members can achieve the objective.Neither approach really serves the interests of ordinary Muslims. Instead of asking whether Waqf institutions are transparent and accountable, the debate reduces the matter to politics and identity.The need for transparency