Supreme Court Directs the State of UP To File Status Report On Functioning Of Waqf Tribunals

On Monday, the Supreme Court questioned the State of UP as to why only one Wakf Tribunal was functioning in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh. A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B.R.Gavai was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order and judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

Before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner had challenged the notification issued by the State Government in pursuance of the 2013 Amendment to the Wakf Act, 1995. By way of the 2013 amendment, the Parliament amended Section 83 (4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 which stipulated that in every district a Wakf Tribunal shall be constituted to deal with Waqf disputes matters. By way of the powers under the amended section, the State Government had constituted Waqf Tribunals at only two places in the entire state- Lucknow, and Rampur- in place of the existing 70 odd number of previously operational tribunals. 

The Allahabad High Court in its impugned order and judgment had dismissed the writ petition and noted that the net effect of the Amendment is that single-member Waqf Tribunals would cease to exist and multi-member Waqf Tribunals at Lucknow and Rampur would deal with the subject matters. The High Court had also noted that "none of the vested rights of the petitioner could be said to be infringed" while dismissing the petition. 

Before the Supreme Court, Advocate Atif Suhrawardy appearing for the Petitioner submitted that despite the Apex Court in Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust case clearly mentioned that one member Waqf Tribunals would not cease to exist because of the constitution of multi-member Tribunals, the situation on the ground in UP has only two multi-member tribunals have been constituted. He further submitted that the constitution of multi-member Tribunals is nothing but an improvement in the constitution of the Tribunal and both earlier and the substituted sections are not inconsistent with each other. He also pointed out that at present only one Waqf Tribunal was functioning in the entire state of UP.

The Bench asked the state counsel why these Waqf tribunals have not been constituted despite the Apex Court's judgment in Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust Vs Magnum Developers.

In Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust vs Magnum Developers the Supreme Court had noted that it was erroneous to hold that after the Amendment Act, 2013 came into force, the one-member Tribunals would cease to exist even though a fresh notification to constitute three-member Tribunals had not been notified. The Apex Court had noted that "We should keep in mind that it is common practice that the old institution/member continues to exercise duty till the time any new institution/member takes charge of that duty. In the present case also, the one member tribunal will continue to exercise jurisdiction till the time the State constitutes three members tribunal by notification in the Official Gazette."

During the proceedings on Monday, Counsel brougth to the Bench's notice that Justice Nageswara Rao had appeared for the Waqf Board in the Shah Baba Dargah Trust case. "We don't even remember representing anyone", responded Justice Nageswara Rao. 

The Bench questioned the Counsel for the State of UP as to why only one Wakf Tribunal was functioning in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh despite the Apex Court's judgement in Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust Case. It noted that it would require detailed report on the status and functioning of tribunals in the state before deciding on the matter. To this effect, it directed that the matter be listed after three weeks and that the State of UP file a status report on the constitution and functioning of Waqf Tribunals in the state in the meanwhile.

Case Title: Shah Alam v Union of India & Others

Counsel: Adv Atif Suhrawardy for the Petitioners; AOR Pradeep Misra and Adv Sanchit Garg for the Respondents

Read/Download the Order here