Section 83 Wakf Act Merely Enables the Tribunal—It Does Not Empower It: Supreme Court Demolishes Expansive Wakf Tribunal Jurisdiction

“Jurisdiction Must Flow From the Statute, Not From Tribunal’s Mere Constitution,”  On January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of India clarifying once and for all the limited jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals under the Wakf Act, 1995. Holding that “Section 83 does not by itself confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal,” a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal, rejecting the suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal, and set aside the orders of both the High Court and the Tribunal below.

The case revolved around a claim for permanent injunction by the respondent, Mohammed Ahmed, seeking protection of an alleged mosque, said to be constructed on the ground floor of a residential apartment complex in 2008. The appellants denied the very existence of any mosque and contended that even if such a prayer space existed, it had never been notified or registered under the Wakf Act. Hence, they contended, the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The Court agreed, making it categorically clear: “Only such disputes or questions as to the status of such properties in the list of auqaf can be agitated before the Tribunal.” The property in question, admittedly neither notified in the list of auqaf under Section 5(2) nor registered under Section 37, could not fall within the purview of the Tribunal.

“Wakf Tribunal Cannot Determine Rights in Properties That Aren’t Registered as Wakf”—Supreme Court Reaffirms Ramesh Gobindram

At the heart of the judgment lies the long-standing debate over the interpretation of Section 83 of the Wakf Act. The Court settled the matter by reaffirming the principles in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010), declaring that “Section 83 has a nominal heading of ‘Constitution of the Tribunal’ and merely enables the State Government to constitute Tribunals for matters already conferred upon them under the Act.”

Criticising later rulings which expanded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction—including Anis Fatma Begum and Rashid Wali Beg—the Court stated unequivocally: “The expansive interpretation of Section 83 contrary to earlier binding precedent was not warranted.”

The Bench was particularly emphatic that the phrase “relating to a waqf or waqf property under this Act” in Section 83 must be read with precision, not abstraction. The words “under this Act” were not cosmetic but controlling. “The wakf or wakf properties should thus be having a status under the Act... possible only by inclusion in the list of auqaf,” the Court said.

“No Property Outside the Statutory List Can Be Brought Before the Tribunal”—Mandate of Section 6 and 7 Reinforced

The judgment significantly reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries imposed by Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act. The Court clarified that “the Tribunal can decide whether a property is wakf property only if it is specified in the list of auqaf or entered in the Register of Auqaf.”

The respondent’s invocation of the doctrine of “waqf by user” did not aid his case. The Court refused to entertain the argument, stating: “We will not consider the issue as to whether the property can be deemed to be a waqf by user since the question is still at large.”

The Court’s reasoning stemmed from a statutory construction rooted in clarity and finality. “Finality is conferred on the list, only if it is not modified by the Tribunal,” observed the Bench, making it plain that entry into the statutory list or register was a precondition for any adjudication.

“Civil Court Jurisdiction Is the Rule, Not the Exception”—Bar Under Section 85 Not All-Pervasive

In dealing with the argument that Section 85 bars all civil court jurisdiction, the Court was unambiguous: “Section 85 does not bring in an absolute and all-pervasive ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court.”

Quoting Ramesh Gobindram with approval, the judgment notes: “The jurisdiction of the civil courts is excluded only in cases where the matter in dispute is required under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal.” The Bench added that such exclusion must be explicit, not inferred. “It follows that although Section 85 is wider than what is contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the exclusion... is not absolute.”

2013 Amendment Is Clarificatory—Not a Carte Blanche for Tribunal Jurisdiction

The respondent’s argument leaned heavily on the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013, which expanded the definition of “list of auqaf” to include properties registered under Section 37. The Court agreed only in part.

Calling the amendment “procedural and clarificatory,” the Court observed: “The amendment of 2013 merely removed the bar regarding eviction of encroachers... it does not otherwise expand the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.”

The Court underlined that powers like eviction and encroachment, post-2013, arise specifically from Section 54, and not from any supposed omnibus authority under Section 83. “The specific power conferred on the Tribunal was under Section 54(3) & (4) and not under Section 83(1),” it clarified.

“An Ouster Must Be Clear in Law—Not Created by Judicial Imagination”

The Court took issue with previous coordinate benches that used the opening words of Section 83—“any dispute, question or other matter”—to justify near-unlimited jurisdiction for Wakf Tribunals.

It ruled: “Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 83 must be strictly confined to the powers expressly conferred under the Act. An expansive reading ignoring the phrase ‘under this Act’ is contrary to legislative intent.”

The ruling is a reaffirmation of constitutional balance, holding that Tribunalisation cannot come at the cost of jurisdictional clarity.

Tribunal Had No Jurisdiction—Plaint Rejected

With piercing clarity, the Court concluded: “The injunction simpliciter sought for before the Tribunal does not fall within its jurisdiction and the plaint has to be rejected, which we do, allowing the application of the defendant under Order VII, Rule 11.”

It left open the question of whether the property in dispute could ever be recognised as a waqf—but only before the proper forum. “The question of whether the scheduled property is a waqf or not is left open to be agitated in accordance with law,” the Bench stated.

This ruling not only resolves a persistent conflict in judicial interpretation but sets a crucial precedent on the limits of statutory tribunals, marking a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence on Wakf law.

Date of Decision: 28 January 2026