The Supreme Court recently held that the positions of a Sajjadanashin and the Mutawalli are not the same, even if one person may sometimes wear both hats.The bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Vipul M Pancholi, on April 2, held that “Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of Waqf and declaration of Sajjadanashin is a religious affair, however, role of Mutawalli of a Waqf only pertains to the administration and management of the Waqf.”The order resolves a private succession dispute and also echoes a larger understanding of who actually controls a shrine.Peer Pasha Khadri was the Sajjadanashin, the spiritual head, of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah in Shivanasamudra, Karnataka. He had designated his eldest son as his successor. But that son died before him, in 1980. Eventually, in 1981, at a gathering of spiritual leaders and community elders, Peer Pasha Khadri did what such figures had done for centuries—he wrote out a Khilafatnama, which is a formal document conferring spiritual authority by recording his nomination of his eldest grandson as the next Sajjadanashin.His youngest son contested the succession, pointing to an earlier nomination in his favour, his long years managing the dargah, and a clutch of documents—a power of attorney, an affidavit, and a handwritten khilafatnama. He argued that none of the documents in his nephew’s favour actually amounted to a valid nomination.Also in Explained | SC on amended Waqf Act: What has been stayed, what remainsMeanwhile, at a second dargah in Channapatna, a parallel dispute had been dragging through the courts since 1988. By the time the Supreme Court picked it up, the litigation was 37 years old. It had bounced between civil courts and the Waqf Tribunal, and the Karnataka High Court had eventually thrown it out entirely, ruling that civil courts had no business deciding who a Sajjadanashin is. That, said the High Court, was a matter for the Waqf Board. The SC adjudicated and rejected this on both counts.A dargah is a layered institution, with the Sajjadanashin serving as its spiritual leader. The word emerges from “sajjada” – a prayer mat, and “nahshin” is the one who sits on it. The sajjadanashin takes precedence at prayer, and his presence serves the “silsila”, or the chain of spiritual lineage connecting the dargah to its founding saint. He is “the spiritual head of the shrine, responsible for preserving the spiritual lineage (silsila), guiding disciples (murids), conducting religious ceremonies such as Urs and Sandal, and maintaining the spiritual traditions associated with the shrine”, the court said.Story continues below this adMutawalli, by contrast, is the manager who oversees the management of the land, income and accounts, ensuring that the waqf properties are used for their intended religious purposes. This role is entirely statutory, regulated under the Waqf Act, 1995.The practice of choosing a Sajjadanashin is rooted in nomination in the institution’s own practices. However, the Waqf Board can appoint Mutawallis, remove them, inspect their accounts, and direct their conduct.The Waqf Act’s definition of Mutawalli includes a Sajjadanashin. And in many dargahs, the same person holds both roles.The Supreme Court refused that convenience, and pointed to Section 64(2) of the Waqf Act, which explicitly states that “the removal of a person from the office of a mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights…or his right, if any, as a sajjadanashin.” Because the two are mentioned in the same provision, they are deemed as two distinct offices. The court used this understanding to say that the Waqf board’s authority is secular. It can regulate property but cannot determine spiritual succession.What the Supreme Court saidStory continues below this adIn the Shivanasamudra case, the Supreme Court dismissed the uncle’s appeal and confirmed the grandson as the lawful Sajjadanashin. The 1981 Khilafatnama, it said, was a duly proved document. Witnesses, including the one who presided over another dargah, had testified to seeing the nomination conferred in person.The document may not have used the word “Sajjadanashin” but conveyed the intent to transfer the spiritual authority to a specific person.The rival documents failed on their own terms. A power of attorney grants agency only when a person is alive, meaning someone may be authorised to act on your behalf while you are alive. This proviso ceases when the person dies. Thus, the right of succession to a religious office cannot be transferred, the court held.This Word Means | Waqf by useAn affidavit, on its own, lacks the formality and communal witness a Khilafatnama carries. Suspicion about a document, the Court said, is not enough to displace one that has been legally proved.Story continues below this ad“It is required to be observed that from the evidence on record, it transpires that an act as significant as the appointment of a successor to the office of Sajjadanashin would ordinarily be performed through a clear and formal act consistent with the traditions of the institution. Thus, in absence of any other reliable corroborative evidence demonstrating that the affidavit represented such an act of nomination, we are of the view that the Courts below have rightly declined to treat the said document conferring any right of succession,” it noted.In the Channapatna case, the court said that “the office of Sajjadanashin becomes hereditary. It has been also observed that in one case Sajjadanashin was found to be so worthless that he was removed from the Mutawalliship but was allowed to retain the spiritual office ‘Sajjadanashin’ which was considered to be hereditary.”The court restored the civil court decrees and sent the matter back to the High Court to decide on the merits, but firmly settled the jurisdictional question that while the civil courts can hear disputes about the office of Sajjadanashin, the Waqf Board cannot.The declaration of a Sajjadanashin is a religious affair, the Court held, and religious affairs do not reduce to administrative management under a statute.