Supreme Court Holds Bar Council Membership Co-terminus With Waqf Board Tenure; Explanation II Applies

A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal heard appeals arising from conflicting High Court orders on whether a Muslim member elected to a State Waqf Board by virtue of being a member of the State Bar Council could continue as a Board member after ceasing to be a member of the Bar Council. The appeals arose from Manipur and challenged the Division Bench's setting aside of an appointment made by the State to replace an ex‑Bar Council member.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Manipur High Court and restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition. It held that the provision prescribing the Waqf Board's composition in Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) must be read harmoniously to mean that membership of the Board, when based on being a Muslim Member of the Bar Council, was co‑terminus with membership of the Bar Council. The Court rejected an interpretation that would treat Bar Council members differently from Members of Parliament or State Legislatures and found no justification for excluding Bar Council members from the effect of Explanation II. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The words ‘for the removal of doubts’ in Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act, throw light on the clarificatory nature of the said Explanation. Although Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act does not explicitly mention that the term of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council in the Board, is also co-terminus with their term in the Bar Council, this must be understood to be implied, upon a reading of the provision as a whole. This is because the eligibility of persons under the categories listed in Section 14(b)(i), 14(b)(ii), and 14(b)(iii) of the 1995 Act, hinges on their membership in either the Parliament, or the State Legislative Assembly, or the Bar Council respectively. Without such membership in the Parliament, or the State Legislative Assembly or the Bar Council, the very basis for their membership in the Board ceases to exist. There is no satisfactory justification to exclude the applicability of Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the 1995 Act, to a Member of the Bar Council. Such an exclusion would, in fact, run contrary to the legislative intent behind the statute.” The Court further noted that the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” did not govern the interpretation where a reading of the provision as a whole manifested a different legislative intent.

Background The dispute originated when the Bar Council of Manipur issued a Gazette notification on 26.12.2022 reporting the election of the appellant as a Muslim Member of the Bar Council. The State, invoking Section 14(1)(b)(iii) and Section 14(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995, appointed the appellant on 08.02.2023 to the 7th Waqf Board in place of respondent No. 3, who had ceased to be a member of the Bar Council after losing the Bar Council election. Respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 304 of 2023 in the High Court of Manipur, contending that the 1995 Act did not provide for cessation of a Board member’s office on ceasing to be a member of the Bar Council.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23.08.2023, holding that Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) required a Member who ceased to be a Member of Parliament or a State Assembly member to be deemed to have vacated the Waqf Board. The Division Bench, however, took a different view in its judgment dated 23.11.2023, holding that Explanation II applied only to Members of Parliament and State Legislatures and not to Bar Council members, and directed the State to continue respondent No. 3 on the Board until the expiry of his statutory term.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 14 in full, including the provisos to Section 14(2) which addressed situations of single incumbency and absence of Muslim members. The Court observed that the eligibility under Section 14(1)(b) depended on continued membership in the relevant electoral category (Parliament, State Legislature or Bar Council). Applying principles of literal and purposive interpretation, and authorities on the role of explanations and provisos, the Court held that Explanation II must be read to cover Bar Council members as well, so that a member elected by virtue of Bar Council membership ceases to be a Board member when he ceases to be a member of the Bar Council and another eligible member becomes available. The Court found the Nagpur Bench decision in Shri Asif S/o. Shaukat Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra (2016) to be not good law for the purposes of this case. The impugned Division Bench order stood set aside; the Single Judge’s dismissal was restored and the appeals were allowed. No interim directions or special liberties were recorded in the judgment.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 2025 & Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2138 of 2024 and SLP (Civil) No. 8642 of 2024) (2025 INSC 535) Case Title: Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid v. The State of Manipur & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment