The Karnataka High Court has held that, as per the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, only the Wakf Board can remove any member of the Managing Committee, and the Managing Committee has no such power.

The petitioner approached the High Court with the grievance that the Badariya Jumma Masjid (third respondent) had removed the petitioners from the Managing Committee without any authority.

The Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held, “Neither Section 64 nor Rule 58 makes a mention of the Managing Committee. When all these three provisions are read together, it is clear that the Managing Committee has no power to remove any member of the Managing Committee; it is only the WAKF Board which has the power to do so.”

Senior Advocate K.N. Pannendra represented the Petitioner while Advocate Usman P represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that only the respondent Waqf Board has the powers under Section 32(2)(g) of the Wakf Act, 1995 to appoint or remove the “mutawallis”. The substantial provision as regards the reasons for removal is in terms of Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and procedure under Rule 58 of Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, are required to be followed before removal of any “mutawallis”. It was also submitted that the Committee or any member of the Committee would also be covered within the definition “mutawallis” under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

The respondents claimed that there was a serious allegation which had been made against the petitioners for having abetted the suicide of the president of the respondent Managing Committee, and it was in the background that the Managing Committee was required to take immediate action.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Bench held that it is only the Wakf Board which can appoint or remove any “mutawallis” in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The Bench also explained that Section 64 provides for the Wakf Board to remove a “mutawalli” from his office, if any of the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied and while doing so, the procedure under Rule 58 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017 is required to be followed. The Bench further stated, “Be that as it may, the substantive right of removal granted under Section 32 (2)(g) of the WAKF Act, 1995 is to the WAKF Board and not to the committee. The reasons for removal are contained in Section 64, and the procedure to be followed is as per Rule 58, which details how the notice was to be issued by the Board.”

As per the Bench, the Managing Committee of Wakf would not have any power to remove a member of the Managing Committee appointed by the Wakf Board.

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the proceedings of the Special Meeting insofar as the removal of the petitioner was concerned. “Liberty is, however, reserved to the WAKF Board to initiate such proceedings as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the matter”, it ordered.

The Bench also clarified that the petitioners would continue to be members of the Managing Committee.

Cause Title: Abdul Sattar v. Karnataka State Board of Waqf (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:45657)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate K.N. Pannendr, Advocate Lethif B

Respondent: Advocate Usman P

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice Suraj Govindaraj

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.