The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a Waqf Tribunal cannot exercise supervisory or administrative powers over the Gujarat State Waqf Board, emphasizing that its jurisdiction is strictly adjudicatory under the Waqf Act, 1995. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mool Chand Tyagi, serves as a definitive clarification regarding the functional boundaries of judicial bodies specifically established to settle disputes under the Waqf regulatory framework. By quashing wide-reaching directions issued by the Waqf Tribunal in Gandhinagar, the High Court reinforced the principle that statutory authorities must operate solely within the powers explicitly conferred upon them by the legislature.

The dispute originated from an appeal filed by Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Punjani, the Muttavalli of the B/100 – Junagadh Suryawad Memon Jamat in Porbandar. The appellant had challenged an order dated July 28, 2026, wherein the Waqf Tribunal, while rightfully setting aside an administrative decision of the Board regarding election procedures, had simultaneously issued expansive, mandatory directions. These included orders to take possession of the trust’s financial books, audit reports, and both movable and immovable properties, as well as an explicit instruction for the Board to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant and six other members.

The Limit of Judicial Oversight

In his analysis of the case, Justice Tyagi noted that while the directions issued by the Tribunal appeared to be well-intentioned and aimed at protecting the Waqf’s interests, they fundamentally overstepped the court’s statutory mandate. The Court held that the Tribunal is a creature of the statute and, as such, must remain confined to its adjudicatory role. The judgment states: “The jurisdiction vested in the learned Tribunal is essentially adjudicatory in nature. It is not a supervisory authority over the Waqf Board nor has the Act conferred upon it any general power of superintendence over the functioning of the Waqf Board or its statutory authorities.”

The High Court drew heavily on established precedents, including the Supreme Court’s observations in M.P. Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah , which established that where a statute creates different authorities to exercise their respective functions, each must operate within the four corners of the statutory scheme. The High Court reasoned that if a Tribunal attempts to assume the administrative functions of the Board, it essentially usurps the very powers meant to be exercised by a distinct administrative body. The court further pointed out that the Waqf Board is the primary statutory authority tasked with the superintendence and management of Waqf properties; therefore, any deviation by the Tribunal into this domain is legally unsustainable, regardless of the perceived need for reform in the trust's administration.

Historical Inaction and Legal Mandates

During the proceedings, the High Court highlighted a troubling history of governance within the Porbandar Suryawad Memon Jamat. The record indicated that, despite clear bye-laws requiring annual elections for trustees, no such elections had taken place since 1996. Numerous complaints had been lodged by stakeholders regarding the management of trust funds and properties, yet the Gujarat State Waqf Board had historically failed to take decisive or consistent action.

The court did not shy away from criticizing the Board’s lack of initiative, noting that the material on record painted an unsatisfactory picture of its functioning. Despite this documented lapse in duty, Justice Tyagi emphasized that the Board’s failure to perform its statutory obligations does not grant the Tribunal a license to overstep its own legal bounds. The ruling clarified that: “The failure of a statutory authority to discharge its duties in accordance with law cannot be a ground for another statutory authority to assume powers which have not been conferred upon it. The remedy for such failure must necessarily be worked out within the statutory framework.”

Restoring Administrative Responsibility

The practical consequence of this judgment is that the Tribunal’s unauthorized instructions regarding the seizure of records and the forced registration of criminal complaints were set aside. Instead, the High Court has remanded the matter back to the Gujarat State Waqf Board, mandating a specific timeline for resolution. The Board has been directed to conduct a formal, transparent inquiry into the various complaints received regarding the Porbandar-based trust. This inquiry must be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Waqf Act, 1995, and the associated rules, ensuring that all concerned parties are afforded due opportunity to be heard.

The court has given the Board three months to finalize these proceedings. Furthermore, the Board is expected to take all necessary consequential steps to ensure the proper management and protection of the Waqf, its accounts, and its assets. The High Court’s order effectively resets the administrative process, placing the burden of accountability back on the Board while providing a strict directive that this duty must be performed with due diligence. This ensures that the administrative remedies provided by law are applied correctly rather than being bypassed by judicial overreach. The case stands as a significant reinforcement of the separation of powers within the specialized legal framework governing Islamic endowments in India. The appellant’s challenge was successful in curbing the Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction, effectively realigning the administration of the trust within the appropriate regulatory channels.