5 April 2026
The interplay between the jurisdiction of civil courts and statutory authorities under the Waqf Act, 1995 has long been a subject of legal debate. A recent Supreme Court ruling has brought much-needed clarity by distinguishing the roles of Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli, and by reaffirming the jurisdictional boundaries between civil courts and Waqf Boards.
Distinction Between Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli
At the heart of the controversy lies the fundamental difference between two key functionaries of a Waqf institution: A Sajjadanashin is a spiritual head, responsible for religious duties such as guiding disciples, conducting rituals, and preserving spiritual traditions of a Dargah.
A Mutawalli, on the other hand, is a secular manager, entrusted with administrative control and management of Waqf property.
The Supreme Court emphasized that although the definition of “Mutawalli” under Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act includes Sajjadanashin in an inclusive sense, the two roles are inherently distinct. A Sajjadanashin may perform certain administrative functions, but a Mutawalli cannot assume the spiritual role of a Sajjadanashin. This distinction is crucial in determining the appropriate forum for adjudication of disputes.
Jurisdiction of the Waqf Board
Under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, the Waqf Board is empowered to appoint and remove Mutawallis. This authority is limited to the administrative sphere of Waqf management.
The Court clarified that:- The Waqf Board’s powers are confined to secular administration of Waqf properties.
Appointment or removal of Mutawallis falls squarely within its jurisdiction. However, the Board has no authority over purely religious offices, such as that of a Sajjadanashin. Thus, any attempt to treat Sajjadanashin as equivalent to Mutawalli for all purposes would amount to a misinterpretation of the statutory scheme.
Civil Court’s Jurisdiction: Not Easily Ousted
The judgment reaffirms a well settled principle under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 civil courts have plenary jurisdiction to try all civil disputes unless expressly or impliedly barred.
The Supreme Court held:–
Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred.
The Waqf Act does not expressly bar civil court jurisdiction in disputes relating to the office of Sajjadanashin.
Since such disputes involve religious and customary rights, they fall outside the exclusive domain of the Waqf Board or Tribunal.
Therefore, civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes concerning succession or entitlement to the office of Sajjadanashin.
Error by the High Court
In the case under discussion, the High Court had held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction, treating the office of Sajjadanashin as falling within the powers of the Waqf Board. The Supreme Court found this approach legally flawed because:
It conflated the roles of Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli.
It incorrectly interpreted Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act.
It ignored the spiritual nature of the Sajjadanashin’s office.
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in denying civil court jurisdiction.
Recognition of Custom and Religious Practice
Another significant aspect highlighted by the Court is the role of custom and tradition in determining succession to the office of Sajjadanashin. Unlike Mutawalli, whose appointment may be governed by statutory provisions, the office of Sajjadanashin is often:
Hereditary in nature
Determined by nomination
Guided by long-standing religious customs
Such matters inherently require adjudication by civil courts, which are competent to examine evidence relating to custom, usage, and religious practices.
Protection of Dual Roles
The Court also referred to Section 64(2) of the Waqf Act, which protects personal rights. It clarified that:- Removal of a Mutawalli does not extinguish a person’s rights as a Sajjadanashin. This reinforces the independent and distinct nature of the two offices.
Key Takeaways
This judgment lays down important legal principles:
Clear distinction between Sajjadanashin (spiritual) and Mutawalli (administrative).
Waqf Board’s jurisdiction is limited to administrative matters, including appointment/removal of Mutawallis.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes relating to Sajjadanashin.
Custom and religious practice play a vital role in determining succession to spiritual offices.
Jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be ousted unless expressly provided by statute.
