A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the appointment of a non-Muslim as the executive officer of the Maharashtra State Haj Committee, which manages the state's quota of pilgrims travelling to the annual Haj in Saudi Arabia.
Alleged Violation of Law
The petition, filed by Yusuf Abrahani, a lawyer and former MLA, stated that the appointment of Manoj Jadhav, an Indian Administrative Service officer, is ‘illegal and violates the statutory and religious framework governing the Haj pilgrimage’. Abrahani, who has served on the Central Haj Committee, said that although Section 29 of the Haj Committee Act 2002 stipulates that the executive officer ‘shall preferably be a Muslim’, the law’s objective makes the appointment of a Muslim official a ‘mandatory requirement’.
Quo Warranto Plea
The petition, represented by advocate Feroz Usman, has sought a quo warranto (a test to find out whether a person has the legal right to hold a public office) against Jadhav, claiming that the official's appointment is ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Haj law. The appointment is marked by a manifest lack of jurisdiction and application of mind by the state government, the petition says.
Colourable Exercise of Power
The petitioner alleges that the government has exercised ‘colourable power’, intentionally bypassing the established protocol of selecting leadership from a qualified panel of Muslim officers.
Religious Autonomy Argument
At the heart of the dispute is the preservation of the religious identity of Islamic institutions. The petitioner argues that the appointment directly infringes upon Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee religious communities the right to manage their own affairs without State interference.
Conflict With Central Norms
The petitioner maintains that Section 29 of the Haj Committee Act must be read in strict alignment with Section 16, which mandates a Muslim CEO for the Central Haj Committee. The petition says that a ‘bifurcated standard’ between state and central leadership would defeat the singular religious purpose of the law. The petitioner highlighted several key sections, such as 4 and 18, that explicitly mandate that committee members must be Muslims. Section 23(iii) formally disqualifies non-Muslims from membership, the petition stated.
Executive Role Questioned
As the CEO serves as an integral part of the Committee’s executive machinery, the petitioner argues that appointing a non-Muslim violates the ‘exclusionary nature’ intended to preserve the body's faith-based character, the petition contended.
Functional Impossibility in Saudi Arabia
Beyond the legal framework, the petitioner raised a practical alarm regarding the CEO’s ability to perform their duties. Under Sections 9 and 27, the Committee is responsible for supervising religious rituals and coordinating logistics within the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah.
Also Watch:
Saudi Entry Restrictions
A non-Muslim is barred by Saudi Arabian law from entering Makkah and Madinah, rendering them functionally incapable of performing duties mandated by the Act’, the petitioner stated.
Pilgrim Welfare at Risk
The court was urged to view the appointment not merely as a procedural oversight but as a functional impossibility. The petitioner contended that because the executive officer cannot physically access the sites where the pilgrimage occurs, the appointment creates a systemic administrative failure. This, they argue, jeopardises the welfare of over 1.5 lakh pilgrims and fails the primary objective of the Act.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
