No change in leadership for Dawoodi Bohra community: The dispute explained

Bombay High Court dismisses a suit challenging Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's position as the religious leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected a decade-long case challenging Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s leadership of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The case, which was heard by Justice Gautam S Patel, had concluded on April 5, 2023, with the verdict being reserved. Justice Patel said he had kept the verdict “as neutral as possible for personalities involved” as “feelings will run high”, and that he had decided the issue “on proof and not faith”.

The dispute

The Dawoodi Bohras, a Shia Muslim sect known for their entrepreneurship, have more than 500,000 members in India and more than 1 million worldwide.

The supreme leader of the community is called the al-Dai al-Mutlaq and he sits in Mumbai. In 2014, after the passing of the 52nd al-Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin, his son Mufaddal Saifuddin succeeded him. However, this succession was challenged by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the late Syedna's half-brother, in the Bombay High Court.

Justice Patel began hearing the suit in November 2022.

How is a successor picked?

In accordance with the Dawoodi Bohra faith and doctrine, the successor to the Dai is chosen through "divine inspiration." This "nass," or conferment of succession, can be bestowed upon any deserving member of the community. However, in practice, the nass is often bestowed upon a member of the current Dai's family.

What was Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s claim?

Khuzaima Qutbuddin alleged that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin had wrongfully assumed the position of Dai. In a suit filed in April 2014, Qutbuddin sought a High Court order to prevent the late Syedna’s son from acting as the Dai and requested access to Saifi Manzil, the Syedna's residence in Mumbai.

Qutbuddin claimed that in 1965, following his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin's passing, Burhanuddin publicly designated him as the maazoon (second-in-command) on December 10, 1965, after assuming the position of Dai. However, prior to this public appointment, Burhanuddin had privately declared him as his successor through a secret nass.

Qutbuddin further claimed that during the public appointment ceremony, individuals of "higher spiritual learning present" understood that he was also being conferred the title of mansoos (successor), although this specific title was not explicitly mentioned.

Qutbuddin alleged that Burhanuddin instructed him to keep the private nass (designation) a secret, which he maintained until Burhanuddin's death. Qutbuddin's legal team, led by senior advocate Anand Desai, argued in court that since the Dai's decisions are considered infallible and based on divine inspiration, the nass conferred upon Qutbuddin could not have been altered or revoked.

Following Qutbuddin's death in the United States in 2016, his son, Taher Fakhruddin, continued the legal battle, claiming that his father had transferred the nass to him, thereby asserting his right to be declared the Dai.

What was the claim made by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin?

The defendant, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, presented his case through senior advocates Iqbal Chagla, Janak Dwarkadas, and Fredun Devitre.

Saifuddin’s lawyers contended that the nass of 1965 lacked witnesses and could not be deemed valid. They further argued that, according to established doctrines within the Dawoodi Bohra faith, nass could be subject to alteration and revocation.

The senior advocates informed the Bench that on June 4, 2011, the 52nd Dai (Burhanuddin) had bestowed nass upon Syedna Saifuddin in the presence of witnesses at Bupa Cromwell hospital in London, where the Dai was hospitalised after suffering a stroke.

Thirteen witnesses, including the doctors who treated the 52nd Dai, his son and grandson, individuals knowledgeable in Dawoodi Bohra doctrine, and the community library's rector, testified on behalf of the defendant.

These witnesses provided documentation indicating that in 1969, the 52nd Dai had expressed his intention to appoint his son (the defendant) as his successor, and had informed select senior members of the community about his decision. This appointment was reaffirmed in 2005 in private and publicly reiterated in June 2011.

The defendant's counsel raised doubts about Qutbuddin's silence regarding his claim to the Dai position between 2011 and 2014, alleging that he only asserted his claim after the demise of the Dai (Burhanuddin) in 2014, as an "afterthought."

Furthermore, the defendant argued that even if nass had been conferred upon the original plaintiff (Qutbuddin) in 1965, in line with the community's doctrinal belief, only the most recent nass would hold validity.