Waqf Tribunals Cannot Assume the Board’s Supervisory Powers Over Waqf Administration

The appellant, who claimed to be the duly appointed Muttavalli of the Porbandar Suryawad Memon Jamaat Waqf, challenged the Waqf Board CEO’s order appointing an Election Officer and Assistant Election Officer, alleging that it was made without notice or a hearing.

The Waqf Tribunal set aside that appointment order but also directed, among other things, an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities, criminal complaints, appointment of an administrator, and transfer of the Waqf’s records and properties.

The appellant appealed against those additional directions, contending that they exceeded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Board and other respondents defended the directions by reference to complaints of mismanagement, alleged financial irregularities, and the Board’s inaction.

Whether the Waqf Tribunal, in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, could issue directions concerning the Waqf Board’s supervisory and administrative functions, including inquiries, criminal complaints, appointment of an administrator, and transfer of Waqf property and records

Whether the Board’s alleged failure to act on complaints or comply with statutory procedure could justify the Tribunal assuming powers not conferred on it by the Act

Under Sections 32, 67 and 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Waqf Board holds statutory powers concerning the supervision, administration and protection of Waqfs, including conducting inquiries into their administration.

Section 83 establishes the Tribunal as an adjudicatory forum; it cannot assume general supervisory or administrative powers assigned to the Board.

In M.P. Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 696, the Supreme Court held that a Tribunal cannot usurp a function statutorily assigned to the Board.

S.V. Cheriyakoya Thangal v. S.V.P. Pookoya & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2024, likewise distinguishes the Tribunal’s adjudicatory role from the Board’s administrative jurisdiction.

Although Board of Wakf, West Bengal & Anr. v. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 588, recognises the Tribunal’s broad jurisdiction over disputes relating to Waqf property, it does not confer general supervisory authority over the Board.

The High Court found that the record raised serious concerns about the Board’s handling of complaints, including an earlier inquiry set aside for failure to follow statutory procedure, and that trustee elections had not been held since 1996.

Those circumstances warranted action by the Board but did not enlarge the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction.

By ordering the Board to conduct an inquiry and lodge criminal complaints, appointing an administrator, and directing the transfer of records and properties, the Tribunal entered the Board’s supervisory and administrative domain.

The Tribunal’s broad jurisdiction over Waqf-related disputes did not authorise it to issue those directions.

The Board was therefore required to address the complaints through proceedings conducted in accordance with the Act and Rules, after giving the concerned persons an opportunity to be heard.

The matter was remanded to the Gujarat State Waqf Board, which was directed to complete proceedings on the complaints within three months, follow the prescribed procedure, hear all concerned persons, and take any consequential action permitted by law, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected stay applications were disposed of.