Madras High Court Strikes Down 2010 Tamil Nadu Amendment On Waqf Properties As Unconstitutional: Here's All You Need To Know

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has declared unconstitutional a 2010 amendment that brought waqf properties under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1976.

The amendment had empowered the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to order the eviction of encroachers from these properties.

Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held the 2010 amendment as repugnant to the Waqf Act of 1995, a Central legislation.

As reported by The Hindu, they ruled that encroachers of waqf properties could only be evicted through waqf tribunals constituted under a 2013 amendment to the Central law.

The court concurred with arguments presented by a team of lawyers led by Senior Counsel V. Raghavachari and S.R. Raghunathan, who contended that the 2010 amendment exceeded the state's jurisdiction and required Presidential assent due to its conflict with the Central law.

Rejecting the state government's argument for co-existence of the state and Central laws, the bench mentioned that the Waqf Act of 1995 lacked sufficient provisions to address encroachments on waqf properties.

The division bench also said that the original provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 were not stringent enough to deal with encroachment or illegal occupation of waqf properties.

Therefore, the Sachar Committee had recommended that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 should be applied to waqf properties too.

In light of this, Tamil Nadu brought in the 2010 amendment following the recommendation, although many other states did not do so.

The court noted that the subsequent Central amendment in 2013 superseded the state law.

Concluding its verdict, the bench said, "The Central Act is thus made as an exhaustive code on the subject. Therefore, the state enactment is repugnant to the Waqf Act of 1995 as amended in the year 2013."

Also Read: Kotak Mahindra Bank Responds To RBI Curbs, Expects No Material Impact On Overall Business: All About It