Waqf Board Lacks Jurisdiction To Appoint 'Sajjadanashin', Civil Court Can Decide Dispute As Office Is Distinct From 'Mutawalli': Supreme Court

"Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of Waqf and declaration of Sajjadanashin is a religious affair, however, role of Mutawalli of a Waqf only pertains to the administration and management of the Waqf," Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated April 2, 2026, held that the Waqf Board does not possess the jurisdiction to declare or appoint a 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head) of a Dargah, and such disputes are to be adjudicated by a Civil Court. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the statutory powers of the Waqf Board under the Waqf Act, 1995, are confined to the secular and administrative office of a 'Mutawalli', which cannot be conflated with the religious office of a Sajjadanashin.

The dispute traces back to 1988 concerning the entitlement to the hereditary spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarat Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah in Channapatna, Karnataka. The appellant claimed the office based on a 1981 nomination by his grandfather, which was upheld by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court after a prolonged trial. However, the Karnataka High Court set aside these concurrent decrees in second appeal, holding that under Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act, a Sajjadanashin is subsumed within the definition of a Mutawalli, giving the Waqf Board exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The primary question before the court was whether the offices of a Mutawalli and a Sajjadanashin are identical under the Waqf Act, 1995. The court was also called upon to determine whether civil courts possess the inherent jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the appointment of a Sajjadanashin, to the exclusion of the Waqf Board.

Offices Of Mutawalli And Sajjadanashin Are Distinct

Analyzing Sections 32 and 50 of the Waqf Act, 1995, alongside Rule 57 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, the court emphasized that the duties of a Mutawalli are purely administrative. The bench noted that a Mutawalli acts as a manager tasked with protecting Waqf property, keeping accounts, and carrying out the Board's directions. Affirming this secular character, the court categorically noted that "an office of Mutawalli is not a spiritual office."

Relying on Section 64(2) of the Act, which protects a person's rights as a Sajjadanashin even if they are removed as a Mutawalli, the bench highlighted the legislative recognition of the distinct nature of both offices. A Sajjadanashin is the spiritual superior of a Dargah, entrusted with religious instruction and spiritual continuity. The court clarified that while a Sajjadanashin can discharge the functions of a Mutawalli if appointed under Section 32(2)(g), a mere Mutawalli cannot function as a Sajjadanashin.

"Sajjadanashin of a Waqf can also discharge the function of its Mutawalli... however, Mutawalli under Section 32(2)(g) cannot function as a Sajjadanashin but can only perform the duties as prescribed under the Act and the Rules."

Waqf Board Lacks Jurisdiction Over Religious Appointments

The court observed that the Waqf Board's power to appoint and remove Mutawallis is strictly confined to the administrative sphere. It noted that the declaration of a Sajjadanashin is an exclusively religious affair, over which the Waqf Board exercises no authority. The bench even recorded the concession made by the Karnataka State Board of Waqf, which admitted during proceedings that the role of a Sajjadanashin falls outside its administrative purview.

Civil Court Retains Plenary Jurisdiction

Rejecting the High Court's conclusion that the Civil Court suffered from an inherent lack of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court restored the maintainability of the civil suit. The bench held that since the appointment of a spiritual head is not a matter required to be determined by the Waqf Board under the Act, the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, remains intact. "The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the present case," the bench declared.

Belated Jurisdictional Plea Unjustified

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court for entertaining a plea regarding the lack of jurisdiction for the very first time in a second appeal. The bench observed that the dispute had been lingering in various courts for over 37 years, and the Waqf Tribunal itself had returned the matter to the Civil Court in 2002—an order that was never challenged.

Relying on the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (no one shall be prejudiced by an act of court), the bench found it highly improper to relegate the parties back to the Waqf Board at such a belated stage. The court emphasized that the initial decrees were passed after appreciating comprehensive evidence, and setting them aside purely on a belated jurisdictional objection defeated the ends of justice.

"The High Court has committed grave error in quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court... by holding that the same are nullity as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the present matter."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's impugned judgment, thereby restoring the concurrent decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The bench remanded the matter back to the High Court with a specific request to adjudicate the second appeals strictly on merits within nine months, explicitly excluding the settled question of jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2026