The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has stepped in to resolve a long-standing fight over trustee elections for the Choti Masjid Trust in Buldhana district. The trouble started when the Waqf Tribunal canceled the 2019 trustee election and overturned the Maharashtra State Waqf Board’s approval of their change report. The trustees elected in 2019 challenged this decision in the High Court. On December 11, 2023, Justice Shailesh P. Brahme ordered fresh elections to be held within two months with clear rules. Abdul Rahman Abdul Razzaque and others were elected on February 25, 2019, for five years. Their change report got Waqf Board approval on September 1, 2021. But the Choti Masjid Trust claimed the voters’ list was faulty and the election officer lacked authority. Acting on this complaint, the Waqf Tribunal nullified the 2019 election on June 16, 2023. The trustees then asked the High Court to interpret unclear parts of the 1989 scheme and confirm their term. Advocate Ameet R. Vaidya for the trustees said, “The Tribunal overlooked the resolution dated December 22, 1989, and in view of clause 27 of the scheme, the resolution has a binding force in the absence of any rules or regulations to regulate the elections. The Tribunal should have upheld the election of the applicants.” He also called clauses 8(C) and 8(D) “autocratic” and asked the Court to clarify them to make elections workable. Advocate S. S. Kazi for the Trust said the Waqf Board alone should decide on the scheme and supported the Tribunal’s order. Advocate N. E. Deshmukh also called key clauses “ambiguous and autocratic,” citing the Waqf Act. The Court noted the 1989 scheme lacked clear election rules and said the provisions were “ambiguous.” It set the voter age at 21 and defined eligible voter areas around Peth Ahmedpur village and nearby places. The Court said this interpretation would temporarily guide elections until the Waqf Board updates the scheme under Section 69 of the Waqf Act. It ordered fresh elections in two months under these rules, regardless of pending modification requests. The Waqf Board must decide any scheme changes independently. The Court said, “The explanation or clarification... would facilitate a free and transparent election without any confusion.” The case was closed with these directions.