Summary
The State could not supersede the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board merely because nominated members outnumbered elected members. Ensuring the statutory composition was the State’s duty, and the imbalance did not establish wrongdoing by the Board. The Court upheld relief confined to the mutawalli category, invalidated the fresh election for those two seats and restored the earlier members for the remainder of their normal tenure.
Issues
- Whether an imbalance between elected and nominated members justified supersession of the Board.
- Whether the relief confined to the two mutawalli seats should be disturbed.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1)–(4), Waqf Act, 1995Distinguished nominated and elected members, explained the State’s responsibility for composition and the exception for nominations under subsection (3). (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23)
- Section 22, Waqf Act, 1995Applied the saving of Board proceedings despite vacancies or defects in constitution. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- Section 99(1) and its provisos, Waqf Act, 1995Required the supersession grounds and the second proviso’s prima facie evidence to concern the Board’s own conduct. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- Senior advocates nominated under the proviso to Section 14(1)(b)(iii) could not be treated as elected members. Section 14(4) gives primacy to elected members, subject to the exception for nominations under Section 14(3). Ensuring compliance when constituting the Board was the State’s responsibility. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The imbalance relied upon did not arise from an action, omission or misconduct of the Board. Cessation of a member’s parliamentary office was outside its control. The State could address composition through the statutory electoral process or, where its conditions were met, Section 14(3); its own lapse could not justify supersession. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The second proviso to Section 99(1) restricts supersession to cases with prima facie evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct or statutory violation by the Board. Read with the main provision, it did not permit supersession on the circumstances relied on here. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The High Court had moulded relief for the mutawalli category while leaving other categories’ fresh constitution untouched. The writ petitioners had not challenged the limitation of relief, and the State’s appeals furnished no basis to disturb it. (¶ 27)
- The fresh 2020 election for the two mutawalli seats became non est. Syed Ali Akbar and Dr. Haja K. Majeed were to continue until expiry of their normal five-year tenure beginning 10 October 2017. (¶ 28)
Result
All appeals dismissed. Limited High Court relief upheld; fresh election for the two mutawalli seats invalidated and the earlier members continued for their normal remaining tenure.