Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Waqf Board Appointment

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a Bombay High Court ruling, upholding the Maharashtra state government's power to cancel the appointment of a nominated member to the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs. The case highlights the interpretation of Section 14 and 15 of the Waqf Act, 1995, regarding the appointment and tenure of board members.

Case Background

The case involved the appointment of Shri Mahemud Mahebub Shaikh as a member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs on September 13, 2019. This appointment was subsequently cancelled on March 4, 2022. Shri Shaikh challenged the cancellation in the Bombay High Court, which deemed the cancellation arbitrary and set it aside. The state government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The High Court's Ruling

The Bombay High Court held that Section 15 of the Waqf Act, 1995, guaranteed a five-year term for board members, which could only be curtailed through disqualification (Section 16) or removal (Section 20). The court argued that the cancellation was arbitrary because no reasons were given and it contravened Section 15.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. The judges clarified that while Section 15 specifies a five-year term, this does not apply equally to all members. The Court distinguished between elected and nominated members. The court reasoned that while the term of elected members couldn't be easily curtailed, the government retained the flexibility to cancel the appointments of nominated members.

The Supreme Court noted that the power to appoint inherently includes the power to cancel an appointment. They further rejected the argument that the cancellation procedure under Section 20 (removal) was not followed, emphasizing that the appointment was cancelled, not the member removed.

Crucially, the Supreme Court found that the High Court lacked factual basis to deem the cancellation arbitrary . The absence of reasons in the cancellation order did not automatically render the action arbitrary.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized:

"The power to appoint would include the power of cancellation of appointment."

"For holding the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis. It did not exist in this case."

Implications

This Supreme Court ruling clarifies the state government's authority regarding nominated members of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs. It establishes that the five-year term under Section 15 is not absolute for nominated members, and appointments can be cancelled without necessarily following the removal procedure of Section 20. The decision underscores the importance of a factual basis for any claim of arbitrary action by the executive. The High Court’s order was set aside, and Shri Shaikh ’s writ petition was dismissed.