Muslim Member Of State Bar Council Can't Continue In Waqf Board After End Of Term In Bar Council : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a person appointed as a member of the State Waqf Board by virtue of being a Muslim member of a State Bar Council can no longer continue to be a member of the State Waqf Board after he ceased to be a member of the Bar Council.

As per Section 14 of the Waqf Act(before the 2025 amendment), a Muslim member of the Bar Council of a State/UT can be appointed as a member of the Waqf Board of the said State/UT.

The question before the Court was "Whether a Muslim Member of the Bar Council of the State or the Union territory, duly elected as a Member of the Waqf Board constituted under Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995 can continue to hold the said position, even after the expiry of his tenure in the Bar Council."

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the Manipur High Court, given in November 2023, which held that even after the end of the tenure of a Muslim member in the State Bar Council, he can continue his position in the State Waqf Board. 

In February 2023, the Manipur Government notified the appointment of the Appellant(a Bar Council Member) as a member of the State Waqf Board, replacing the Respondent No.3 whose membership in the Bar Council expired. Respondent No.3 challenged the appointment of the Appellant before the High Court. Though the single bench dismissed his writ petition, the division bench allowed it.

The High Court's reasoning was based on Explanation II to Section 14, which held that a Muslim MP or MLA will cease to be a member of the State Waqf Board once their term as MP/MLA comes to an end. According to the High Court, since the Explanation only said that an MP/MLA will cease to be a member of the Waqf Board on their term coming to an end in the legislature, the end of the term of a Bar Council Member will not affect their membership in the Waqf Board.

Reference was also made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shri Asif S/o Shaukat Qureshi Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr where the Court allowed the Bar Council member to continue his term as a member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs, Aurangabad, despite no longer being a Council Member.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning and also held that the Bombay HC's decision was wrong.

The Court also observed that the Explanation II to S.14, cannot become the basis for the interpretation of the main substantive provision.

The Court rejected the argument of the respondents and noted that S.14 is a mandatory provision and lays down the scheme of the composition and eligibility of state waqf boards. The Court held that the eligibility of the membership in the Waqf Board was the membership in the Parliament, Legislative Assembly or the Bar Council.

"Without such membership in the Parliament, or the State Legislative Assembly or the Bar Council, the very basis for their membership in the Board ceases to exist. There is no satisfactory justification to exclude the applicability of Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act, to a Member of the Bar Council. Such an exclusion would, in fact, run contrary to the legislative intent behind the statute."

The bench further held that an explanation provided to the substantive provision of law cannot become the sole basis of interpreting the substantive provision itself.

"To interpret a legislative provision, what must be primarily considered is its substantive part. An explanation simply performs a clarifying function. In other words, the substantive part of a provision cannot be understood solely from the point of view of an explanation," stated the judgment authored by Justice Sundresh.

"An explanation, which is simply in the nature of a clarification as regards certain categories, cannot be read in a manner which is violative of the substantive part of the provision," the Court added.

The Court also held that an ex-member of the Bar Council will be eligible to the Waqf Board membership only if there is no Muslim member in the Bar council and there is no Muslim Senior Advocate available.

"It is thus, axiomatic to state that an existing Muslim Member of the Board from the Bar Council, would cease to be a Member of the Board, upon the completion of their tenure as a Member of the Bar Council, when there is another Muslim Member available to replace them from within the Bar Council. Thus, upon a reading of the entire provision, it is clear that there is no conscious intention on the part of the Legislature to omit the applicability ofExplanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act, to Muslim Members of the Board elected from the Bar Council."

Going by the legal analysis above, the Court upheld the decision of the State Government to appoint the Appellant :

"In the case at hand, the State of Manipur has deemed it fit to accept the membership of the appellant, who is admittedly serving as a Muslim Member of the Bar Council, to the Board. A Gazette notification had been issued by the Bar Council of Manipur, stating that the appellant had been elected as a Member of the Bar Council. Therefore, as such, a Member of the Bar Council was available, who was subsequently elected as a Member of the Board, in accordance with Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the 1995 Act. Respondent No. 3, who is no longer holding the said post of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council, cannot be allowed to contend that even after he had ceased to be a Member of the Bar Council, he would be entitled to continue as a Member of the Board."

While setting aside the High Court's judgment, the bench also held that the decision in Shri Asif is not a good law.

Case Details: MD. FIROZ AHMAD KHALID v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. | SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.2138/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 454

 Click here to read the judgment