Kerala CM Satheesan making false claim on SC rejecting petitions against Waqf amendment Bill: Rajeeve
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader and former Law Minister P. Rajeeve on Wednesday accused Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan of making a false claim that
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader and former Law Minister P. Rajeeve on Wednesday accused Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan of making a false claim that the Supreme Court had rejected petitions against the Union government’s Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act, or the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Speaking to mediapersons, he said the Chief Minister had used the falsehood to further claim that it was binding on the State government to include two non-Muslims on the Waqf Board. “In the intervention petition filed in the Supreme Court during the LDF government’s tenure, it also took a clear stand that non-Muslims should not be appointed on the Waqf Board.
The government argued that there is no rationale behind inclusion of non-Muslim members on the Waqf Boards and there is strong legal contention that such inclusion of non-Muslims violates Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. As per the amended Section 14 of the Act, members from Muslim community might end up as minority on the board. How can the CM make this claim that the petitions were rejected when the government’s case is also pending in the court. The SC had agreed to hear the issues in August 2026,” said Mr. Rajeeve.
He alleged that the Chief Minister had begun speaking like a spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party, by echoing its stance on including non-Muslims in an institution related to Muslims. The stand contradicted the Congress party’s stated position. “After taking a stand similar to the BJP’s, the CM goes on to accuse Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan of taking a communal stand. The government said in the High Court on July 14, 2026, through the special government pleader that it was prepared to reconstitute the board strictly in compliance with the mandate of Section 14 of the UMEED Act.
This was also against the stated position of the Indian Union Muslim League, which had also approached the Supreme Court against the amendment,” he said.
The BriefWire