“Co‑terminus Tenure” Doctrine for Muslim Bar Council Members on Waqf Boards
Supreme Court settles the scope of Explanation II to Section 14(1)(b) of the Wakf Act, 1995

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid v. State of Manipur, Civil Appeal Nos. 3797‑3798 of 2025 (reported as 2025 INSC 535), addresses a seemingly narrow but practically significant question: Whether a person who sits on a State Waqf Board by virtue of being the “Muslim Member of the State Bar Council” may continue to occupy that seat after his Bar‑Council tenure ends.

• Appellant: Md. Firoz Ahmad Khalid – elected Muslim member of the Bar Council of Manipur (Dec 2022).
• Respondent No. 3: Former Bar‑Council member who had earlier been nominated to the Manipur Waqf Board.
• Contested Act: Wakf Act, 1995 – especially Section 14 (composition of Board) and its Explanation II.
• Lower‑court path: Single‑Judge dismissed the writ petition; Division Bench reversed; Supreme Court now restores the Single‑Judge view.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. Section 14(1)(b)(iii) mandates that one or two members of a State Waqf Board be elected from the “Muslim members of the Bar Council of the State/UT.”
2. Explanation II explicitly deems a Board member to have vacated office once he/she ceases to be an MP or MLA; it is silent on Bar‑Council members.
3. The Division Bench treated the silence as deliberate, allowing the former Bar‑Council member (Respondent No. 3) to stay on the Board.
4. The Supreme Court reverses that view, holding that the tenure on the Board is co‑terminus with the qualifying office. Silence in Explanation II cannot undo the clear structure in Section 14; purposive and harmonious interpretation demands that the same logic apply to the Bar‑Council category.
5. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 vacated the Board seat upon losing his Bar‑Council status, and the State correctly installed the appellant in his place.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• The State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud (2022) – cited by the respondent to support literal reading; Court distinguishes.
• Shri Asif Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra (Bom HC 2016) – earlier decision that allowed a former Bar‑Council member to continue; expressly overruled.
• Dattatraya Govind Mahajan (1977) & S. Sundaram Pillai (1985) – authoritative on how Explanations clarify but do not rewrite substantive provisions.
• Government of A.P. v. Corporation Bank (2007) – reiterates literal rule’s primacy, subject to legislative intent.
• Kirloskar Ferrous (2025) 1 SCC 695 – latest restatement that an Explanation cannot enlarge or narrow the parent provision.
• Maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” – Court explains its limits (citing National Tobacco, BC Nawn, State of Karnataka v. UOI).
• Purposive Interpretation cases – Shailesh Dhairyawan (2016), Grid Corporation (2011) guide the Court’s approach.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Supreme Court

1. Differentiating Substance & Explanation
   The core eligibility in Section 14(1)(b) is conditional: one must currently hold the specified office (MP, MLA, Bar‑Council member). Explanation II only “removes doubts”; it cannot limit the condition.
2. Harmonious Reading with Section 14(2) Provisos
   • First proviso: if there is only “one” Muslim MP/MLA/Bar‑Council member, that very person is automatically elected.
   • Second proviso: where there are “no” Muslim holders, ex‑members form the electoral college.
   Reading these together, the statute assumes that once a person stops being a current holder, he exits the college and the Board—unless the factual vacuum (no current member, no senior Muslim advocate) triggers the fallback to ex‑members.
3. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification (Art. 14)
   Allowing MPs/MLAs to vacate automatically but not Bar‑Council members would be irrational; no intelligible differentia supports such unequal treatment.
4. Rejection of “Expressio Unius” Argument
   Silence as to Bar‑Council members in Explanation II is not a conscious exclusion but an instance of “excessive caution” or drafting economy. Applying the maxim would defeat legislative intent.
5. Purposive Construction
   The goal of Section 14 is to ensure that the Board always reflects the contemporary Muslim representatives of four streams: MPs, MLAs, Bar professionals, and Mutawallis. Anchoring tenure to the parent office upholds that purpose.

3.3 Likely Impact on Future Litigation & Governance

• Nation‑wide Effect – All State Governments and Waqf Boards must treat terms of MPs/MLAs/Bar Council members as automatically lapsing with their parent office, even if the Act is silent.
• Consistency & Stability – Prevents former office‑holders from clinging to Board seats, reducing litigations revolving around “deemed vacancy.”
• Guidance on Drafting Omissions – Reinforces that courts will plug legislative “gaps” where necessary to further statutory purpose, deterring hyper‑literal challenges.
• Overruled Authority – Bombay High Court’s Asif Qureshi is declared “not good law,” cleansing conflicting precedent.
• Influence on Allied Boards/Tribunals – Principle may be invoked where membership is tied to another qualifying post (e.g., Minority Commissions, Medical Councils, University Syndicates).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Explanation vs. Proviso – An Explanation clarifies ambiguity; a Proviso carves out an exception or special case. Neither should rewrite the main clause.
• Electoral College (under Wakf Act) – A group of persons (Muslim MPs, MLAs, Bar members, Mutawallis) from whom Board members are elected.
• Co‑terminus – Two tenures that end simultaneously; here, Board membership ends when Bar‑Council membership ends.
• Purposive Interpretation – Reading a statute to best serve its object, even if it requires stretching literal words.
• “Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius” – “Expression of one is the exclusion of others.” Useful, but only where the legislature’s intent to exclude is clear.
• Reasonable Classification (Art. 14) – Law can treat groups differently only if there is a rational link between the difference and the law’s purpose.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court has authoritatively pronounced the “co‑terminus tenure” doctrine for Muslim members of State Bar Councils serving on Waqf Boards. By treating Explanation II as illustrative rather than exhaustive, the Court ensures statutory coherence, equal treatment across categories, and fidelity to the Wakf Act’s purpose of mirroring current Muslim representation.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the ruling is a guidepost on: (i) how Explanations and Provisos interact with substantive clauses; (ii) disciplined use of traditional canons (like expressio unius); (iii) the judiciary’s role in ironing out “creases” left by the draftsman. Future litigants and administrators must now reckon with a clear, uniform rule: lose the parent seat, lose the Board seat.