ALL INDIA IMAM ORGANIZATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1993-5-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 13,1993

ALL INDIA IMAM ORGANIZATION Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-195] [REFERRED TO]
CHITRA PANDEY VS. SHYAM VISHAL PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR RAJYA SAHKARITA PRABAN-DHAK SANGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
KAPILA HINGORANI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2003-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHAN RAYCHOWDHURY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF W.B. AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1998-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
ST PETERS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH VS. FR ABRAHAM MATHEWS [LAWS(KER)-2011-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-930] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MURARI AGARWAL, ETC. VS. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF AND OTHERS, ETC. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-329] [REFERRED TO]
PROF. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
Sundar Das Dhananjay Mandal Kuldip Yadav VS. State of Bihar [LAWS(PAT)-1994-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
A K BINDAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-4-50] [REFERRED]
HAFIZ MOHD KHALID VS. DELHI WAKF BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-120] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1994-4-54] [REFERRED]
Anand Mani and 2 others VS. State of Uttaranchal & others [LAWS(UTN)-2003-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
LAIRENLAKPAM POIREITON MEITEI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
Sonu Agrawal VS. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and Others [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
CHAPRA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2004-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THRU SECY , MICRO, SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES VS. TRILOKI NATH TIWARI & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-180] [REFERRED TO]
T.M. SAMPATH VS. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1994-3-40] [REFERRED]
HAFIZ M.ABDUL SAMAD VS. AMEERUNNISA BEGUM SAHEBA ENDOWMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2022-11-326] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHVIR KAUR VS. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY [LAWS(P&H)-2020-2-434] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. THIRUKKOIL PANIYALARGAL SANGAM AMBASAMUDRAM [LAWS(MAD)-2000-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI NATH TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-286] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA MISHRA VS. RAJ NARAYAN MISHRA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-229] [REFERRED TO]
KUL HIND TANZIAM E MASJID VS. DELHI WAKF BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2001-7-126] [REFERRED]
DIST AGRICULTURE OFFICER` VS. JUNAGADH JILLA MAZDOOR SANGH RAJKOT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-11-23] [REFERRED 25.]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. JOGIRAJ DUTTA [LAWS(GAU)-2001-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
NANDA BALLABH KANDPAL VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
SEENATH BEEVI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
TEMPLES IN THE ERSTWHILE MALABAR AREA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1994-7-30] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.)Imams, 'incharge of religious activities of the mosque' (1) have approached this Court by way of this, representative, petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental right against their exploitation by Wakf Boards. Relief sought is direction to Central and State Wakf Boards to treat the petitioner as employees of the Board and to pay them basic wages to enable them to survive. Basis of claim is glaring disparity between the nature of work and amount of remuneration. Higher pay scale is claimed for degree holders.
(2.)Imams perform the duty of offering prayer (Namaz) for congregation in mosques. Essentially the mosque is a centre of community worship where Muslims perform ritual prayers and where historically they have also gathered for political, social and cultural functions'.(2) The functions of the mosque is summarised by the 13th Century Jurist Ibn Taymiyah 'as a place of gathering where prayer was celebrated and where public affairs were conducted'. (3) 'All mosques are where Muslim men on an equalitarian basis rich or poor, noble or humble, stand in rows to perform their prayers behind the Imam'. (4) Imams are expected to look after the cleanliness of mosque, call Azans from the balcony of the minarets to the whole religious meetings and propagate the Islamic faith. They are expected to be well versed in the Shariat, the holy Quran, the Hadiths, ethics,. philosophy, social, economic and religious aspects. 'Imam or prayer leader is the most important appointee. In the early days the ruler himself filled this role; he was leader (Imam) of the government of war, and of the common Salat ("ritual prayer"). Under the Abbasids, when the caliph no longer conducted prayers on a regular basis, a paid Imam was appointed. While any prominent or learned Muslim can have the honor of leading prayers, each mosque specifically appoints a. man well versed in theological matters to act as its Imam. He is in charge of the religious activities of the mosque, and it is his duty to conduct prayers five times a day in front of Mihrab'.(5)
(1) to (5) The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. 10 p. 121-122

(3.)On nature of the duties performed by the Imams there is no dispute. But both the Union of India and various State Wakf Boards of different States which have put in appearance in response to the notice issued by this Court have seriously disputed the manner of their appointment, right to receive any payment and absence of any relationship of master and servant. It is stated that the Imams or Muazzins are appointed by the Mutwallis. According to them the Wakf Boards have nothing to do either with their appointment or working. It is claimed that under Islamic religious practice they are not entitled to any emoluments as a matter of right as the Islamic law ordains the Imams to offer voluntary service. They are said to be paid some money out of the donations received in mosques or by the Mutwallis of the Boards. Their job is stated to be honorary and not paid. Nature of duty under Islamic Shariat is stated to lead prayers which is performed voluntarily by any suitable Muslim without any monetary benefit. Some of the affidavits claim that they are appointed by people of the locality. The Union Government has specifically stated that the Islam does not recognise the concept of priesthood as in other religions and the selection of Imams is the sole prerogative of the members of the local community or the managing committee, if any, of the mosque. According to Karnataka Wakf Board Imamat in the mosque is not considered to be employment. The allegation of the petitioners that due to meagre payment they are humiliated or insulted in the society, is denied and it is claimed that they are respectable persons who carry on the duty of Imamat as a part of religious activity and not for earning bread and butter. The Delhi Wakf Board pointed out that the honorarium is paid to an Imam as a consideration for his five time presence in the mosque regularly and punctually. The Board has denied any right to exercise an authority over the mosque where Imams and Muazzins are appointed by the mutawallis or by the managing committees. It is stated that holding of a certificate from a registered institution to enable a person to lead the prayer is not necessary as the only requirement for being an Imam under the Shariat is to have a thorough knowledge of the holy Quran and the rites, rules and obligations required for offering prayers according to the principles laid down by the Kuran and Sunnah. The affidavit filed on behalf of Wakf Board has pointed out that mosque can be categorised in five categories, one, which are under direct control or management of the Government such as Mecca Masjid or the mosque situated in public garden which are not governed or regulated by the Muslim Wakf Board; second, mosques which are under the direct management of Wakf Board; third, mosques which are under the control of mutwallis under various Wakfs according to the wishes of the Wakif as the creator of the Wakf; fourth, mosques which are not registered with the Wakf Board and are managed by local inhabitants and are under the management of the public who offer prayers regularly in a particular mosque; and fifth, mosques which are not managed by mutwallis or the Muslims of the locality. It is claimed that Imams of fourth and fifth category are not regular and any Muslim can lead the prayers, whereas under the third category mosques are having regular Imams. Financial difficulty of the Wakf Board to meet the demand has also been pointed out. The Pondicherry Wakf Board has pointed- that there is not even one employee except a peon working therein and, therefore, it is not possible to meet the demand of the Imam. It is also claimed that the Board has no control over the pesh-imams as they are considered to be well dignified personality of the society and they are given due respect by the Muslim community as a whole. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Punjab Wakf Board it has been stated that Imams of mosques in Punjab were being paid on basis of their qualification. Imams Nazara (Mubtali grade) are in the scale of Rs. 380-20-580-25-830-30-980, whereas Imams Hafiz (Wasti grade) are paid Rs. 445-20-645-25-895-30-1045, and Imam Alim (Muntali grade) are paid Rs. 520-20-720-25-970-30-1120. They are also paid Rs. 30/- per month medical allowance and Muazzins are paid Rs. 310/- per month. These scales were revised in 1992. According to them Imams of all the mosques in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh which come under the Punjab Wakf Board are being paid regularly and they are treated as regular employees. The Sunni Central Wakf Board of Uttar Pradesh filed only a written submission stating that all the sunni mosques were managed by mutawallis of the concerned managing committees and not by the Wakf Board.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.