Sections 32 and 66 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 operate harmoniously; State Government holds appointing authority under Section 66 for waqfs under deeds, decrees, or schemes excluding Waqf Board jurisdiction.
In a landmark judgment dated July 31, 2026, the Madras High Court Full Bench resolved a long-standing controversy concerning the jurisdiction to appoint Mutawallis (trustees/managers) of waqfs governed by judicial schemes in Tamil Nadu. The Full Bench, comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar, R. Vijayakumar, and L. Victoria Gowri, delivered a detailed and authoritative interpretation of Sections 32 and 66 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (“the Act”), clarifying the respective roles of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and the State Government in waqf administration.
The case arose from a writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s appointment of General Trustees for the Hazrath Tableh Alam Bahadur Shah Nathar Wali Dargah Waqf, Tiruchirappalli, which was governed by a Scheme Decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in 1925. The petitioners contended that the appointments by the Board lacked jurisdiction since the Scheme Decree vested the appointing authority with the Scheme Court, and by virtue of Section 66 of the Act, such power now resides with the State Government, not the Board.
The controversy centered on the interpretation and interplay between Section 32, which vests “general superintendence” of all waqfs in the Waqf Board, and Section 66, a special provision that governs cases where deeds, decrees, court orders, or schemes exclude the Board and vest powers in other authorities.
After exhaustive examination of the legislative history, statutory provisions, and a multitude of judicial precedents spanning several decades, the Full Bench held that:
1. Complementary Operation of Sections 32 and 66: Section 32 confers broad, continuing supervisory authority on the Waqf Board over all waqfs, including those governed by judicial schemes, as clarified by the Explanation appended to Section 32(1). Section 66, however, is a special, independent provision that applies narrowly to specific powers vested under deeds, decrees, court orders, or schemes in authorities other than the Board.
2. Distinct Legislative Fields: Neither provision displaces the other. Section 32 governs the general superintendence and oversight, while Section 66 governs the exercise of particular appointing powers where the governing instruments expressly exclude the Board.
3. Jurisdiction to Appoint Mutawallis: For waqfs governed by deeds, decrees, court orders, or schemes to which Section 66 applies, the appointing authority is the State Government, which must exercise such powers after consulting the Waqf Board.
4. Survival and Efficacy of Judicial Schemes: Judicial Scheme Decrees continue as binding legal instruments until lawfully modified, superseded, or terminated. Their survival is distinct from the question of which authority exercises specific powers after the Act’s commencement.
5. Consultation Mechanism: The statutory requirement for the State Government to consult the Waqf Board ensures that the Board’s institutional expertise informs executive decisions without transferring decision-making authority.
6. Institutional Architecture: The Act contemplates coordinated functioning among the Waqf Board (regulator), State Government (executive authority), Mutawallis (managers), Waqf Tribunals (adjudicators), and Civil Courts (residual jurisdiction). This distribution is deliberate to avoid concentration or conflict of powers.
The Full Bench further reconciled apparently conflicting prior judgments, affirming the continuing validity of earlier authorities that recognized judicial schemes’ binding nature and the Board’s supervisory role, while clarifying the scope of the more recent decisions emphasizing the statutory role of the Board.
In conclusion, the Court decisively ruled that the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board does not possess jurisdiction under Section 32 to appoint Mutawallis for waqfs governed by deeds, decrees, court orders, or schemes falling within Section 66’s ambit. Instead, such appointment powers rest with the State Government, acting in consultation with the Waqf Board.
The judgment underscores the importance of harmonizing legislative provisions to preserve institutional balance, respect judicial decrees, and advance the protective and administrative objectives of waqf law.
The writ petition has been directed to be placed before the Single Judge for disposal in light of this authoritative Full Bench pronouncement.
Bottom Line :
Relationship between Board's general superintendence and State Government's powers, Section 32 confers general supervisory jurisdiction on Waqf Board over all waqfs including those governed by deeds, decrees, court orders, and schemes, Section 66 is a special, independent provision governing specific powers in cases where legal instruments vest powers in authorities other than the Board - Both Sections operate harmoniously within their respective legislative fields - Judicial Scheme Decrees survive the Act unless lawfully modified or superseded - Where Section 66 applies, the State Government, in consultation with the Waqf Board, exercises appointing powers - The Act contemplates coordinated institutional functioning rather than institutional exclusivity - Earlier authorities and Division Bench decisions reconciled, Section 32 does not vest jurisdiction in the Board to appoint mutawallis for waqfs governed by legal instruments to which Section 66 applies; such power lies with State Government after consultation with Board.
Statutory provision(s): Section 32, Section 66 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995
J. Ilayas v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (Madras)(FB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2960285
