1993 (5) TMI 183 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exploitation of Imams by Wakf Boards
2. Employment status and remuneration of Imams
3. Financial difficulties of Wakf Boards
4. Legal and administrative responsibilities of Wakf Boards

Detailed Analysis:

Exploitation of Imams by Wakf Boards
The petitioners, representing Imams in charge of mosque religious activities, sought enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming exploitation by Wakf Boards. They requested recognition as employees of the Boards and demanded basic wages for survival, citing a glaring disparity between their work and remuneration. The petition highlighted the essential role of Imams in leading prayers, maintaining mosque cleanliness, calling azans, and propagating Islamic faith, asserting that their duties require them to be well-versed in Shariat, the Quran, Hadiths, ethics, philosophy, and various social, economic, and religious aspects.

Employment Status and Remuneration of Imams
The Union of India and various State Wakf Boards disputed the petition, arguing that Imams are appointed by Mutwallis and not entitled to emoluments as a matter of right under Islamic law, which ordains voluntary service. They claimed that Imams are paid from mosque donations or by Mutwallis, and their role is honorary. The Delhi Wakf Board, however, acknowledged paying Imams an honorarium for their regular presence. The Punjab Wakf Board detailed a structured pay scale for Imams based on qualifications, treating them as regular employees. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of statutory provisions for Imam appointments does not negate their need for sustenance, recognizing that many Imams rely solely on their mosque duties for livelihood.

Financial Difficulties of Wakf Boards
The Wakf Boards cited financial constraints as a barrier to meeting the demands for Imam remuneration, pointing out the large number of mosques and the heavy expenditure involved. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that financial difficulties cannot override the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court emphasized the Boards' duty to harness resources to pay Imams, who perform the crucial role of leading community prayers, the primary purpose of mosques.

Legal and Administrative Responsibilities of Wakf Boards
The Supreme Court highlighted the Wakf Boards' supervisory and administrative responsibilities under the Wakf Act, including ensuring that mosque income is applied to its intended purposes. The Court rejected the Boards' claim of having no control over mosques or Imams, asserting that the Boards are responsible for the proper maintenance of religious services in mosques. The judgment underscored that the Boards' duties include ensuring that Imams, who are integral to mosque functions, are adequately compensated.

Directions Issued:
1. The Union of India and the Central Wakf Board are to prepare a scheme within six months for different types of mosques.
2. Mosques under government control are excluded, but the government may fix emoluments for Imams without independent income.
3. The scheme should provide remuneration for Imams in registered mosques, guided by the pay scale in Punjab and Haryana.
4. State Boards must ascertain each mosque's income and the number and nature of required Imams.
5. Full-time Imams' remuneration should follow the Punjab Wakf Board guidelines, with similar guidance for part-time Imams.
6. Full-time Imams should be paid as determined by the scheme.
7. Part-time and honorary Imams should receive remuneration and allowances as per the scheme.
8. The scheme must address small or rural mosques with no income and find ways to raise funds.
9. The scheme should be enforced within six months, with remuneration effective from December 1, 1993, if not prepared in time.
10. The Central Wakf Board's scheme must be implemented by every State Board.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, directing the preparation and enforcement of a scheme to ensure fair remuneration for Imams, recognizing their essential role and the Boards' responsibility to support them financially. The judgment emphasized the fundamental rights of Imams to live with dignity, irrespective of financial constraints faced by the Wakf Boards.