Waqf Board MP Arif Masood Rejects Non‑Muslim Membership, Cites Supreme Court Ruling

When the debate over the composition of India’s Waqf Boards resurfaced last week, one name kept cropping up in the headlines – MP Arif Masood. The legislator, a long‑time member of the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board, took a firm stand against proposals to allow non‑Muslims onto the board.

“The very purpose of a Waqf is religious,” Masood said in a brief interview, his tone a mix of conviction and a hint of exasperation. “If we start bringing in people who don’t share that faith, we dilute the spirit of the institution.” He wasn’t just speaking from personal belief; he leaned on a Supreme Court judgment from 2021 that explicitly stated the board’s membership must be limited to Muslims.

The court case, officially titled State of Madhya Pradesh v. Waqf Board, examined whether the state could prescribe a quota for non‑Muslim members in order to improve transparency. The bench concluded that the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom trumped any administrative desire for mixed representation. “The Board is a religious body, not a secular committee,” the verdict read, and that phrasing has become Masood’s favorite line when defending his position.

Critics, however, argue that the call for exclusivity runs counter to modern governance norms. “Diversity can bring accountability,” one activist remarked, “and it doesn’t mean we’re stripping the Board of its religious character.” Masood brushed the comment aside with a weary smile, adding that the Board already has internal audit mechanisms, and that “adding outsiders would just create more paperwork, not better oversight.”

He also warned that forcing non‑Muslim participation could open a legal Pandora’s box. “Imagine a scenario where a non‑Muslim asks the Board to divert funds to a cause that contradicts Islamic principles,” he mused. “We’d be stuck in endless litigation.” While the concern may sound far‑fetched to some, Masood’s argument taps into a broader unease about government interference in faith‑based institutions.

For now, the issue remains unsettled. The state government has yet to issue a formal policy change, and the Supreme Court’s decision still stands as the legal backbone for Masood’s stance. Whether the conversation will shift toward a more inclusive model or stay firmly rooted in tradition is a question that will likely play out in the courts and the corridors of power alike.