Muslim Bar Council member's term on Waqf Board will end with Bar Council tenure: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a Muslim member of a State Bar Council, who is appointed to a State Waqf Board, cannot continue as a member of the Board on expiry their tenure in the Bar Council [Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid vs. State of Manipur & Ors].A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal ruled that eligibility to the Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995 flows directly from the individual’s status as a Muslim member of the bar council and ends with it. It thus set aside a Manipur High Court judgment that had allowed a former Bar Council member to retain his seat on the Board despite demitting office as bar council member. “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,” the Court said..The case arose from a dispute between Firoz Ahmad Khalid and Rabi Khan over membership in the State Waqf Board. In February 2023, the State government appointed Khalid to the Board after his election to the Bar Council, replacing Khan, whose term had ended.While a single judge of the Manipur High Court dismissed the challenge to this appointment, a Division Bench reversed that ruling, holding that Explanation II to Section 14 only required sitting MPs and MLAs to vacate Waqf Board posts upon expiry of their tenures, and made no such mention of Bar Council members..The top court, however, overruled the High Court decision. "Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act does not explicitly mention that the term of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council in the Board, is also co-terminus with their term in the Bar Council, this must be understood to be implied, upon a reading of the provision as a whole," the Court said.However, the Court also clarified that where there are no Muslim members in any of the three categories mentioned in Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act, ex-Muslim Members of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly or ex-Member of Bar Council as the case may be, shall constitute the electoral college."This means that if there is no serving Muslim Member in the Bar Council and also no Senior Muslim advocate who is available, only then would an ex-Member of the Bar Council be eligible to be a Member of the Board. 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," it added..The Court also held that Bombay High Court's decision in Shri Asif S/o Shaukat Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra to permit a former Bar Council member to remain on the Board, was not a good law.It also rejected the argument that Explanation II’s silence implied legislative intent to exclude Bar Council members from its scope.“Giving an overreaching interpretation to Explanation II… would amount to treating Members of Parliament and Members of the State Legislative Assembly differently from Members of the Bar Council. No intelligible differentia is discernible for such a classification from the scheme of the provision," it said. .Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the single-judge’s order and upheld appellant Khalid's appointment by the State of Manipur..Advocates Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Anupama Ngangom, Rajkumari Divyasana, Rajkumari Banju and B Krishna Prasad appeared in the matter. .[Read Judgment]