<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court's order which restrained the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/kannada-groups-condemn-alleged-attack-on-sabarimala-pilgrims-in-tamil-nadu-warn-of-protest-3904785">Tamil Nadu</a> Waqf Board from exercising any powers and functions since the mandate of having two non-muslim members was not fulfilled.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government and others seeking their responses on the petition filed by the waqf board challenging the High Court's January 8, 2026 order.</p><p>The court, however, said that it was staying the HC order, noting that the Waqf board's constitution was prima facie not in accordance with the provisions of law. </p><p>The HC restrained the board from exercising its statutory functions and roles.</p><p>Senior advocate P Wilson for the Board submitted that while eight members had already been appointed, three were yet to be nominated due to the practical difficulties arising from the Bar Council elections, since the statute mandates the appointment of a Bar Council member. </p><p>He contended that the continued non-functioning of the board would significantly affect its administrative responsibilities, particularly in view of the impending month of Ramzan.</p><p>The court said that the High Court had erred in rendering the board defunct for such a stay was contrary to Section 22 of the Act and that the doctrine of necessity must apply to ensure the functioning of statutory bodies. </p>.Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court's stay of TN University Amendments Acts; directs fresh hearing.<p>The court thus stayed the HC’s order of January 8.</p><p>The apex court directed that the status of the remaining appointments should be placed before it during next hearing after two months.</p><p>The High Court's judgment had come on a plea challenging the constitution of the waqf board on various grounds, including that one out of the two persons as mandated in clause (d) of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, has not been nominated.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court's order which restrained the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/kannada-groups-condemn-alleged-attack-on-sabarimala-pilgrims-in-tamil-nadu-warn-of-protest-3904785">Tamil Nadu</a> Waqf Board from exercising any powers and functions since the mandate of having two non-muslim members was not fulfilled.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government and others seeking their responses on the petition filed by the waqf board challenging the High Court's January 8, 2026 order.</p><p>The court, however, said that it was staying the HC order, noting that the Waqf board's constitution was prima facie not in accordance with the provisions of law. </p><p>The HC restrained the board from exercising its statutory functions and roles.</p><p>Senior advocate P Wilson for the Board submitted that while eight members had already been appointed, three were yet to be nominated due to the practical difficulties arising from the Bar Council elections, since the statute mandates the appointment of a Bar Council member. </p><p>He contended that the continued non-functioning of the board would significantly affect its administrative responsibilities, particularly in view of the impending month of Ramzan.</p><p>The court said that the High Court had erred in rendering the board defunct for such a stay was contrary to Section 22 of the Act and that the doctrine of necessity must apply to ensure the functioning of statutory bodies. </p>.Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court's stay of TN University Amendments Acts; directs fresh hearing.<p>The court thus stayed the HC’s order of January 8.</p><p>The apex court directed that the status of the remaining appointments should be placed before it during next hearing after two months.</p><p>The High Court's judgment had come on a plea challenging the constitution of the waqf board on various grounds, including that one out of the two persons as mandated in clause (d) of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, has not been nominated.</p>