NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court order restraining the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board from exercising any powers and functions after observing that the mandate of two members of the Board being non-Muslim was not fulfilled.
While issuing notice to the Tamil Nadu government and others seeking their responses on the petition filed by the waqf board challenging the High Court's January 8 order, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, observed that it was staying the HC order, noting that its (Waqf boards) constitution was prima facie not in accordance with the provisions of law.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board in the top court challenging the Madras HC's order restraining it from exercising its statutory functions and roles.
The SLP was taken up for hearing on Thursday and the bench pronounced the ruling also after a brief hearing.
Senior Counsel P Wilson, appearing for the Board, submitted that while eight members had already been appointed, three members were yet to be nominated due to the practical difficulties arising from the Bar Council elections, since the statute mandates the appointment of a Bar Council member.
He further apprised the top court that the continued non-functioning of the Board would significantly affect its administrative responsibilities, particularly in view of the impending month of Ramzan.
The Supreme Court observed that the Madras HC had erred in rendering the Board defunct, noting that such a stay was contrary to Section 22 of the Act and that the doctrine of necessity must apply to ensure the functioning of statutory bodies.
Accordingly, the top court stayed the HC’s order of January 8, which had restrained the Board on the ground that its composition did not include two non-Muslim members as required by law.
The Bench directed that the status of the remaining appointments be placed before it during next hearing and directed to the matter to be listed after 2 months.
The HC in its ruling on January 8 had passed the order on a plea which challenged the constitution of the waqf board on the grounds, including that one out of the two persons as mandated in clause (d) of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, has not been nominated.