List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran in the case of Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed (2026) ruled that Waqf Tribunals have jurisdiction only over properties notified in the "list of auqaf" or registered under the Waqf Act, and not over disputes concerning unregistered properties. 

What was the Background of Habib Alladin & Ors. v. Mohammed Ahmed (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed before the Waqf Tribunal. 
• The respondent/plaintiff claimed that a room in a residential complex had, by long religious use, become a mosque in 2008 and therefore constituted waqf property. 
• It was undisputed that the property was neither included in the statutory list of auqaf published under Section 5(2) nor registered under Section 37 of the Waqf Act, 1995. 
• Despite the property being unregistered, the Waqf Tribunal entertained the suit and granted relief in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. 
• The Telangana High Court subsequently affirmed the Waqf Tribunal's decision to grant an injunction in relation to the unregistered property. 
• The appellant challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, contending that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to even examine whether the property was a waqf, as it had never been notified or registered under the Act. 
• The case highlighted a long-standing conflict between two competing lines of precedents regarding the scope of Waqf Tribunal jurisdiction. 
• One line of precedents, including Anis Fatma Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) and Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022), held that Section 83(1) confers expansive jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide "any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property," even for unlisted properties. 
• Another line of precedent, particularly Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010), held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is specific and limited to matters expressly conferred by the Act, with Section 83 being merely an enabling provision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the Telangana High Court's judgment and observed that a bare reading of the plaint would indicate that the property was neither specified in the 'list of auqaf' nor registered under Chapter V. 
• The Court held that the decision as to whether the property is a waqf property or not cannot be decided by the Tribunal since the property is not one specified in the 'list of auqaf', which is the mandatory requirement under Section 6(1) and Section 7(1) of the Waqf Act of 1995 to approach the Tribunal. 
• The Court noted that the decisions in Rashid Wali Beg specifically dealing with Section 83(1) extracted only the words "for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property" and omitted the words "under this Act". 
• The Court emphasized that the wakf or wakf properties should have a status under the Act which is possible only by inclusion in the 'list of auqaf' which includes a list published after a survey under Chapter II or a registration made under Chapter V. 
• The Supreme Court restored the principle laid down in Ramesh Gobindram as the governing law and respectfully affirmed that jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal under the Waqf Act, 1995 and the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 85 of the said Act applies only to properties with status under the Act. 
• The Court accepted the appellant's argument that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, holding that the Tribunal had no authority to examine whether the property was a waqf. 
• The Court held that the plaint itself was liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Waqf Tribunal and the High Court. 
• The Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of jurisdiction. 

What is Waqf Tribunal Jurisdiction? 

About: 

• Waqf Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies established under the Waqf Act, 1995 to adjudicate disputes relating to waqf properties. 
• The jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals has been a subject of judicial interpretation, particularly regarding whether they can decide disputes over properties not formally registered or listed as waqf. 

Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995: 

• Section 83 provides for the constitution of a Tribunal for the determination of disputes, questions, or other matters relating to waqf or waqf property under the Act. 
• The provision empowers the State Government to constitute one or more Tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in respect of waqfs in the State. 
• Section 83(1) states that the Tribunal shall determine "any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property" under the Act. 
• The critical phrase "under this Act" indicates that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to properties that have acquired status under the Waqf Act. 

Section 6 and Section 7 of the Waqf Act: 

• Section 6(1) requires the State Government to publish a list of auqaf (plural of waqf) existing in the State. 
• Section 7(1) requires any person aggrieved by the publication of the list of auqaf to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. 
• These sections establish that inclusion in the 'list of auqaf' is a mandatory requirement for a property to be recognized as waqf property under the Act. 
• Properties not included in this published list or not registered under Chapter V (Section 37) do not acquire the requisite status to invoke Tribunal jurisdiction.

What is Waqf Act, 1995?

Background:  

• The Waqf act was first passed by Parliament in 1954. 
• It was later repealed, and a new Waqf Act was passed in 1995, which gave more powers to Waqf Boards. 
• In 2013, the Act was further amended to grant the Waqf Board extensive powers to designate property as 'Waqf Property.'

Waqf:  

• It is the permanent dedication of movable or immovable properties for religious, pious or charitable purposes as recognised by Muslim law. 
• It implies the endowment of property, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, to God by a Muslim, under the premise that the transfer will benefit the needy. 
• The proceeds from a Waqf typically fund educational institutions, graveyards, mosques and shelter homes. 
• Waqfs in India are regulated by the Waqf act, 1995.

Management of Waqf: 

• A survey commissioner lists all properties declared as Waqf by conducting local investigations, summoning witnesses, and requisitioning public documents. 
• The Waqf is managed by a mutawali, who acts as a supervisor. 
• Unlike trusts established under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which can serve broader purposes and be dissolved by the board, Waqfs are specifically for religious and charitable uses and are intended to be perpetual. 
• Waqfs can be either public, serving charitable ends, or private, benefiting the property owner’s direct descendants. 
• To create a Waqf, one must be of sound mind and hold valid ownership of the property. Interestingly, the creator of a Waqf, known as the Waqif, does not have to be a Muslim, as long as they profess belief in Islamic principles.

Waqf Board: 

• A Waqf board is a legal entity capable of acquiring, holding and transferring property. It can sue and be sued in court. 
• It administers Waqf properties, recovers lost properties and sanctions the transfer of immovable Waqf properties through sale, gift, mortgage, exchange, or lease, with at least two-thirds of the board members voting in favour of the transaction. 
• The Central Waqf Council (CWC), established in 1964, oversees and advises state level Waqf Boards across India.

Waqf Properties:  

• The Waqf board is said to be the third-largest landholder in India after the Railways and the Defence department. 
• Once a property is designated as a Waqf, it becomes non-transferable and is detained perpetually as a charitable act toward God, essentially transferring ownership to God. 

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary in the case of Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao (2026) held that the non-disclosure of a prior live-in relationship before marriage constitutes fraud as to a material fact under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, rendering the marriage voidable and liable to be annulled by a decree of nullity. 

What was the Background of Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 02 December 2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. 
• The wife (appellant) and husband (respondent) filed cross-appeals arising out of a common judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa. 
• The wife sought enhancement of permanent alimony on the ground of miscalculation of the amount awarded. 
• The husband challenged the ex-parte decree of annulment, alleging lack of proper service of summons and asserting that the marriage had suffered an irretrievable breakdown. 
• After the wife went to her matrimonial home, she was introduced to a woman as the 'girlfriend' of the husband. 
• The wife discovered that her husband had been in a live-in relationship with that woman prior to the marriage, a fact allegedly concealed from her and her family. 
• The wife contended that she was subjected to physical and mental torture following a demand for Rs. 15,00,000/- in additional dowry. 
• She alleged the husband was addicted to drinking and that she was eventually ousted from her Sasural in March 2016, deprived of her Stridhan (woman's property). 
• The wife argued her consent was obtained by fraud/concealment of fact, as the husband was represented as a man of good character. 
• The husband contended that the allegations of infidelity and drug addiction amounted to cruelty against him. 
• The husband further argued that the multifarious litigations and irreconcilable differences indicated the marriage was a "dead wood" situation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court clarified that 'fraud' in matrimonial law has a distinct standing and cannot be interpreted in the same manner as fraud under the Contract Act, 1872. 
• The Court stated: "The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said Act is not required to be interpreted in tune with the definition engrafted under Section 17 of the Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia...the definition of fraud given under the Contract Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is sacrament." 
• The Bench held that the suppression of a prior live-in relationship is a qualifying fraud for annulment under Section 12(1)(c). 
• The Court observed: "Since the status of prior live-in-relationship of the respondent/husband with other lady has not been disclosed to the appellant wife, therefore, it may be inferred herein that consent of the petitioner/appellant/wife and her guardian was obtained by practicing fraud by the respondent/husband as required U/S 12(1)(C) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955." 
• On the issue of permanent alimony under Section 25, the Court noted that the husband is employed as Manager (Instrumentation) at Hindustan Zinc Ltd, earning approximately ₹1,56,000 per month, and also considered his assets. 
• The Court recorded that the wife holds an LL.B. degree and claimed to be presently unemployed. 
• The Court found it appropriate to enhance the permanent alimony to ₹50,00,000 as a one-time settlement. 

What is Section 12 of HMA? 

About:  

• Section 12 of HMA envisages provision for voidable marriage as: 
  • A voidable marriage is a valid marriage until it is avoided and it can only be done if one of the parties to the marriage files a petition for the same.  
  • However, in case, any of the parties do not file a petition for the annulment of the marriage, it will remain valid. 

Grounds:  

• Clause (ii) of Section 5 of HMA if not complied with makes a marriage voidable. 
  • As per Section 5 - (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party —  
    • (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind;  
    • (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or  
    • (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. 
• Section12 further mentions following grounds on which marriage can be declare as voidable: 
  • If the marriage has not been consummated because of impotency of the respondent. 
  • If either of the parties to the marriage is incapable of giving consent or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. 
  • If the consent of the petitioner or the consent of the guardian of the petitioner has been obtained by force or fraud. 
  • If the respondent was pregnant before the marriage by some other person than the petitioner. 

Effect:

• The parties have the status of a husband and a wife and their children are considered to be legitimate by virtue of Section 16 of HMA. All the other rights and obligations of the spouses remain intact.