The Supreme Court, in Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid vs State of Manipur & Ors., held that a Muslim member of the State Bar Council appointed to the Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995, ceases to hold the position in the Board upon expiration of their Bar Council membership. The Court set aside the Manipur High Court Division Bench’s judgment and restored the Single Judge’s decision dismissing the writ petition.
Background:
Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid was elected to the Bar Council of Manipur on 26 December 2022 and was subsequently appointed by the State Government as a member of the 7th Waqf Board on 8 February 2023 under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) and Section 14(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995. This appointment was made in place of respondent no. 3, who had ceased to be a member of the Bar Council.
Respondent no. 3 challenged this appointment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 304 of 2023 before the High Court of Manipur, arguing that the Wakf Act contains no provision mandating cessation of Board membership upon expiration of Bar Council tenure. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, citing Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b). However, the Division Bench overturned this ruling on 23 November 2023, reinstating respondent no. 3 as a Board member, holding that Explanation II applied only to Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, not Bar Council members.
Arguments:
Senior Counsel for the appellant and the State of Manipur argued that Section 14(1)(b) clearly includes Muslim members of the Bar Council as part of the Board’s composition. They contended that the Division Bench’s interpretation contradicted legislative intent and that a person loses eligibility upon ceasing to be a member of the Bar Council.
In response, counsel for respondent no. 3 cited judgments including State of Maharashtra vs. Shaikh Mahemud (2022) and Shri Asif S/o. Shaukat Qureshi vs. State of Maharashtra (2016), arguing that Explanation II’s omission of Bar Council members was deliberate, invoking the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal, delivering the judgment, held that Explanation II is clarificatory in nature and not exhaustive. The Court emphasized that eligibility under Section 14(1)(b)(i) to (iii) depends on active membership in Parliament, the State Legislature, or the Bar Council.
The Court observed:
“Without such membership… the very basis for their membership in the Board ceases to exist.”
It reasoned that allowing a former Bar Council member to continue would conflict with legislative intent and create an unreasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Further, the Court stated that the phrase “for the removal of doubts” in Explanation II indicates its clarificatory nature and that its applicability should extend to all sub-clauses of Section 14(1)(b), including Bar Council members.
The Court also rejected the use of the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius in this context, noting that:
“Applying the same would render an interpretation contrary to the intent of the provision, resulting in an unreasonable and unjust classification.”
The Court concluded that an ex-Bar Council member can only be part of the electoral college in absence of an existing eligible Muslim member, and not otherwise.
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restored the decision of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The appointment of Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid to the Waqf Board was upheld.
