2025 Supreme(SC) 680

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid – Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2138 of 2024) With Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8642 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Membership of Wakf Board - When right accrues to a person pursuant to a position that they hold, it ultimately becomes a qualification - Once such qualification ceases to exist, that person would not be eligible to hold any other post based on his earlier position, unless statute categorically facilitates the same.
(2) Interpretation of Statute - Substantive part of a provision cannot be understood solely from point of view of an explanation - An explanation, which is simply in nature of a clarification as regards certain categories, cannot be read in a manner which is violative of substantive part of provision.

Headnote:

(A) Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 14 - Right to continue as Member of Board - When right accrues to a person pursuant to a position that they hold, it ultimately becomes a qualification - Once such qualification ceases to exist, that person would not be eligible to hold any other post based on his earlier position, unless statute categorically facilitates the same - Gazette notification had been issued by Bar Council of Manipur, stating that appellant had been elected as a Member of Bar Council - As such, a Member of Bar Council was available, who was subsequently elected as a Member of Board, in accordance with Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of 1995 Act - Respondent, who is no longer holding post of a Muslim Member of Bar Council, cannot be allowed to contend that even after he had ceased to be a Member of Bar Council, he would be entitled to continue as a Member of Board - Presently, appellant is only Muslim Member in concerned Bar Council - There is no dispute with respect to appellant's eligibility to be a Member of Board by virtue of his membership in Bar Council - Judgment of Single Judge restored. (Paras 14, 18, 19 and 21)

(B) Interpretation of Statute - Doctrine of Purposive Interpretation - To interpret a legislative provision, what must be primarily considered is its substantive part - An explanation simply performs a clarifying function - Substantive part of a provision cannot be understood solely from point of view of an explanation - Object of any provision must be seen in light of provisions surrounding it, which includes proviso(s) and explanation(s) appended to it - An explanation, which is simply in nature of a clarification as regards certain categories, cannot be read in a manner which is violative of substantive part of provision - Although normally, a proviso cannot be used to understand substantive part of provision, there is no absolute bar in doing so, particularly in cases where statute is peculiar and proviso does not create any exception - Ultimately, a proviso or an explanation may be used for several purposes - Courts must appreciate context of such usage before rendering an interpretation to a provision vis-à-vis proviso or explanation contained therein. (Paras 10 and 14)

(C) Maxim - "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" finds absolutely no application to instant case, as applying the same would render an interpretation contrary to the intent of provision, resulting in an unreasonable and unjust classification - The maxim is not one of universal and absolute application - Before said principle can be applied, Court must discern whether a natural interpretation flows from a reading of the provision as a whole. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:

Whether a Muslim Member of the Bar Council of the State or the Union territory, duly elected as a Member of Waqf Board constituted under Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995, can continue to hold said position, even after expiry of his tenure in the Bar Council, is the short issue that arises for consideration in these appeals.

Findings of Court:

Court not inclined to concur with reasoning adopted by Division Bench of High Court in impugned judgment. Decision rendered by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Shri Asif S/o Shaukat Qureshi Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Writ Petition No. 4343 of 2016) decided on 22.12.2016, is not a good law.

Result : Appeals allowed.