MD. FIROZ AHMAD KHALID versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. (22/04/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

A Muslim member of a State Bar Council elected to the State Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995 ceases to be a member of the Board when his tenure in the Bar Council ends. Although Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) expressly mentions only members who cease to be Members of Parliament or of the State Legislative Assembly, reading Section 14 as a whole, including the provisos to Section 14(2), shows that eligibility for all three elected categories hinges on holding the underlying position, so the Explanation applies by implication to Bar Council members as well. The Division Bench's contrary view was set aside and the Bombay High Court's decision in Asif Shaukat Qureshi was held not to be good law.

Issues

Whether a Muslim member of the Bar Council elected to the Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995 can continue as a Board member after his tenure in the Bar Council expires.
Whether Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b), which speaks only of members ceasing to be Members of Parliament or of the State Legislature, applies to members elected from the Bar Council.
Whether the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius requires Bar Council members to be excluded from the operation of Explanation II.

Provisions considered

Section 14(1)(b)(iii) and proviso, Wakf Act, 1995Provides for election of one or two members from the electoral college of Muslim members of the State Bar Council, with nomination of a senior Muslim advocate only if no Muslim member exists. Eligibility hinges on membership of the Bar Council; the appellant, the only Muslim member of the Bar Council, was validly appointed in place of respondent No. 3 who had ceased to be a Bar Council member. (¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18, 19)
Section 14(1)(b), Explanation II, Wakf Act, 1995Declares 'for the removal of doubts' that a member who ceases to be a Member of Parliament or of the State Legislative Assembly is deemed to have vacated office on the Board. Being clarificatory, it cannot be read to override the substantive provision; it was given a harmonious and purposive construction so that the term of a Bar Council member on the Board is likewise co-terminus with his Bar Council membership. (¶¶ 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16)
Section 14(2) and provisos, Wakf Act, 1995The first proviso (a sole Muslim member of Parliament, Legislature or Bar Council is declared elected) and the second proviso (ex-members constitute the electoral college only when no Muslim members exist in a category) confirm the twin conditions of being Muslim and holding the underlying position, and that an ex-member of the Bar Council has a role only when no serving member is available. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12, 13, 16)
Section 15, Wakf Act, 1995The Division Bench had directed that respondent No. 3 continue on the Board till completion of the term of office under this section; that direction was set aside. (¶¶ 4, 21)
Article 14, Constitution of IndiaReading Explanation II so that Bar Council members continue on the Board after losing their position, while Members of Parliament and of the Legislature do not, would create a classification without intelligible differentia or rational nexus to the statute's object; this supported the harmonious and purposive construction adopted. (¶ 15)

Held

Section 14(1) of the Wakf Act is a mandatory provision prescribing the Board's composition. The eligibility of persons in the categories under Section 14(1)(b)(i) to (iii) hinges on their membership of Parliament, the State Legislative Assembly or the Bar Council respectively; without that membership the very basis of their Board membership ceases to exist. There is no satisfactory justification to exclude Bar Council members from Explanation II, and such exclusion would run contrary to the legislative intent. (¶¶ 8, 11)
In interpreting a provision the substantive part is primary; an explanation performs a clarifying function and cannot be read in a manner that violates the substantive part. The words 'for the removal of doubts' show Explanation II is clarificatory. Although a proviso ordinarily cannot be used to construe the substantive part, there is no absolute bar, particularly where the statute is peculiar and the proviso creates no exception; an explanation may also be understood through a proviso, and courts must appreciate the context of such usage. (¶¶ 10, 11, 14)
The provisos to Section 14(2) support the implied inclusion: the first proviso reiterates the twin conditions of being from the Muslim community and holding a position as MP, MLA or Bar Council member; the second proviso makes ex-members the electoral college only when no Muslim member exists in a category. An ex-member of the Bar Council therefore has a role only when no serving Muslim member and no senior Muslim advocate is available, so a sitting Board member from the Bar Council ceases to hold office on completing his Bar Council tenure when another Muslim member is available to replace him. The legislature did not consciously omit Bar Council members from Explanation II. (¶¶ 12, 13)
When a right accrues to a person by virtue of a position held, the position becomes a qualification; once it ceases, the person is not eligible to hold another post based on the earlier position unless the statute categorically so provides. (¶ 14)
Extending Explanation II to Bar Council members accords with the doctrine of reasonable classification under Article 14: an interpretation letting Bar Council members continue despite losing their position would treat them differently from Members of Parliament and of the Legislature without any intelligible differentia and would amount to rewriting the provision. Explanation II must receive a harmonious construction and purposive interpretation so that a Bar Council member's term on the Board is co-terminus with his Bar Council membership. (¶ 15)
The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius has no application: it is not of universal and absolute application and cannot be applied where it would produce an interpretation contrary to the provision's intent and an unreasonable classification. Before applying it the court must see whether a natural interpretation flows from the provision read as a whole, which here is possible by reading Section 14(2) with Section 14(1). (¶¶ 16, 17)
The State validly appointed the appellant, a serving and presently the only Muslim member of the Bar Council of Manipur, to the Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii). Respondent No. 3, who no longer held the position of Muslim member of the Bar Council, could not contend that he was entitled to continue on the Board. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) decision in Asif Shaukat Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 4343 of 2016) is not good law. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)

Result

Appeals allowed; Division Bench judgment dated 23.11.2023 set aside; the Single Judge's judgment dated 23.08.2023 dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 304 of 2023 restored; pending applications disposed of.