Recently, the Karnataka High Court questioned the authority of the State Board of Waqf to issue marriage and divorce certificates to Muslim couples. The Court, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), expressed doubts over the legality of the Government Order that granted such powers to the Waqf Board and its district officers. The Court emphasised that the Waqf Act does not confer such authority and stressed the urgency of resolving the matter. The dispute arose from a Government Order issued on August 30, 2023, which authorized the Waqf Board to issue marriage certificates for Muslim couples. The petitioner, Alam Pasha, challenged this order, contending that the Waqf Act does not empower the Board to deal with marriage or divorce matters. The Court had earlier stayed the implementation of the Government Order in 2023, and during the present hearing, it granted additional time to the State government to respond to the challenge.
The petitioner argued that, historically, the issuance of marriage certificates for Muslim couples was carried out by Kazis under the Kazi Act, 1988. However, after the repeal of this Act in 2013, the State government issued the impugned Government Order authorizing the Waqf Board to assume this function. The plea asserted that the Waqf Act exclusively pertains to the management of moveable and immovable properties of Waqf institutions and does not confer any authority to issue marriage or divorce certificates.
The Court, expressing scepticism over the legal basis of the Government Order, remarked, “Waqf (authority) is granting marriage certificates and divorce certificates also? We will not grant much time (for reply), because this is a very important matter. You apparently have no authority under the Waqf Act.” The Bench, comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun, reiterated the necessity for a prompt resolution of the issue.
During an earlier hearing in November 2024, the State government had justified the Government Order by arguing that many Muslim individuals travelling abroad encountered difficulties in obtaining marriage certificates. However, in the present hearing, the State sought an adjournment citing the unavailability of the arguing counsel.
In light of the submissions made, the Court adjourned the matter and scheduled the next hearing for February 19, granting the State additional time to file its response.
Picture Source :
