Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Attorney General of India, KK Venugopal has addressed a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court expressing his displeasure over a letter he received from the Maharashtra Wakf Board, for which he appears, that read, “alternate arrangements have been made to go ahead with the matter” since AG circulated a letter of adjournment on account of his health. 

The controversy erupted in a batch of petitions raising the issue, 'whether every charitable trust which is set up by a person practicing Islam, automatically becomes a Waqf Property'.

The AG, in his letter, has highlighted that some shocking steps have been taken by whosoever is behind the conduct of this case. AG's letter states that Javed Sheikh, the special counsel appointed by the Wakf Board, who has been instructing him in the Wakf Board cases since 2011 has been removed from his post.

It further highlights that Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv,  who had informed the court on the last occasion that he would be leading him and has been instructing him in the matter, has been withdrawn from the case.

The letter reads that removing counsel at the last minute is a serious, uncalled for and unwarranted attempt to interfere with the administration of justice and amounts to contempt of court. 

AG Venugopal, in the letter, has submitted, "This clearly is an act of contempt of court. The Attorney General cannot be dealt with so casually through a letter of this nature for the simple reason that under Article 76(3) of the Constitution, 'in the performance of his duties the Attorney General shall have right of audience in all courts in the territory of India'."

When the matter came up for hearing today, the Supreme Court slammed the Counsel for Maharashtra Wakf Board for acting in this manner despite there being a letter filed before the Court seeking adjournment of 2 weeks on the count of the health of Attorney General KK Venugopal.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, falling heavy on the counsel, said, " Attorney General is here, he is down with Covid. Is this how you deal with him?" The bench refused to hear the matter and directed the same to be listed on the day on which it was earlier supposed to be.

Earlier, CJI Ramana had said that several petitions raise this question as they have challenged the question of law from a 2011 Bombay High Court order which had set aside two circulars issued by the state of Maharashtra in 2002, vide which Waqf Board had been constituted under the Waqf Act, notifying properties to be designated as Waqf. The High Court stated that the state would be at liberty to supervise Waqfs not registered as a public trust.

Background

The heart of the issue lies in a controversy in 1997. Maharashtra conducted a survey to list Waqfs in the state which was completed in 2002. However, a common board was constituted for both Shia and Sunni sects by the state government which was one of the main grievances. 

The order had also directed the charity commissioner to continue supervising the Muslim Public Trusts including those Waqfs not registered as public Trust. In view of this, the contours of the Waqf Act became an issue of contention.

In 2004, Haji Ali Dargah Trust, Anjuman-i-Islam and Zainum Morriswala Trust challenged the constitution of the Waqf Board by the state government of Maharashtra as defective. The Bombay High Court held that all public trusts will be governed by the Public Trust Act. 

Case Title: Maharashtra State Board Of Wakfs V. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Ors. (& connected matters)