Congress to move SC as MP names Hindu members to Waqf Board

New Delhi: Congress leaders said they would move the Supreme Court after the Madhya Pradesh government reconstituted the state Waqf Board with two Hindu members, making it the first state-level board to be reorganised under the amended Waqf framework. Chief Minister Mohan Yadav reorganised the 10-member board on Sunday. Sanwar Patel was appointed chairman and received a second consecutive term. Manoj Malpani and Animesh Bhargava were included as Hindu members. The decision has turned Madhya Pradesh into the first political and legal test of the amended law at the state level. Congress MLA Arif Masood said the matter related to the Waqf Act was already pending before the Supreme Court and the state government should not have gone ahead with the appointments before the court's final decision. He said the party would challenge both the formation of the board and the appointments. The BJP and the newly appointed board leadership defended the move, saying the board had been reconstituted according to law. Patel said the opposition was politicising the issue. State minister Vishwas Sarang said the Waqf Board was not a mosque committee and should not be viewed only through religion. Why the Madhya Pradesh move matters The state government notification lists Sanwar Patel, Najma Heptulla, Atif Aqeel, Faizan Khan, Fatema Chaudhary, Shaista Sultan, Shabana Khan, Manoj Malpani and Animesh Bhargava as members. The commissioner of the state's Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Department is an ex-officio member. The composition matters because Waqf Boards are not advisory bodies. They are statutory bodies responsible for maintaining records of Waqf properties, monitoring their use and income, protecting them from encroachment, and ensuring that Waqf assets are used for religious, educational and social welfare purposes. This is why the controversy is not limited to two names. It is about who should have a role in administering Waqf assets and whether the amended law has changed that balance in a constitutionally valid way. The Supreme Court is already hearing challenges to the Waqf amendment framework. Opposition parties and Muslim organisations have argued that the changes increase state interference in religious endowments. The government's position has been that the law improves transparency, representation and accountability in Waqf administration. Madhya Pradesh has now acted under the amended framework before the wider political argument has settled. Congress sees hurry, BJP sees compliance Masood's argument is that when the law itself is under judicial scrutiny, the state should not rush to implement its most disputed features. Congress is likely to frame its challenge around that point when it approaches the Supreme Court. The BJP's reply is that the state is not acting outside the law. It says the amended framework permits such appointments and the opposition is using religion to challenge a statutory reconstitution. The dispute will therefore move on two tracks. One is legal: whether the Madhya Pradesh board can stand if the amended law is still being tested before the Supreme Court. The other is political: whether the BJP can present the move as reform and inclusion, while Congress presents it as interference in Muslim institutional control. What happens next Until the Congress challenge is filed and heard, the reconstituted Waqf Board remains the notified body for Waqf administration in Madhya Pradesh. The immediate next step will be whether Congress moves the Supreme Court directly against the state notification or seeks intervention in the pending Waqf Act matter. The case will be watched beyond Madhya Pradesh. If the board survives challenge, other BJP-ruled states may move faster to reconstitute their Waqf Boards under the amended framework. If the court intervenes, the Madhya Pradesh notification could become the first state-level test case in the wider fight over the Waqf law. For now, the political message is clear. Madhya Pradesh has chosen to implement the amended framework. Congress has chosen to challenge it. The Supreme Court may now decide how far states can go while the larger Waqf law battle remains alive.