Dispute over Dawoodi Bohras’ Dai, or religious leader: What is the case in Bombay HC

How is the leader picked?

As per faith and Dawoodi Bohra doctrine, a successor is appointed through “divine inspiration”. A “nass” (conferment of succession) can be conferred upon any deserving member of the community and not necessarily a family member of the current Dai, although the latter is often the practice.

What are Syedna Qutbuddin’s claims?

Qutbuddin had in April 2014 filed a suit asking the High Court to restrain the late Syedna’s son from acting as the Dai-al-Mutlaq. He also sought entry to Saifi Manzil, the house of the Syedna in Mumbai, alleging that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin had taken over the leadership role in a “fraudulent manner”.

Qutbuddin claimed that after Burhanuddin became the new Dai-al-Mutlaq, taking over from his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin in 1965, he had publicly appointed his half-brother as the mazoon (second in command) and privately anointed him as his successor through a secret nass, prior to the mazoon announcement on December 10, 1965.

Syedna Qutbuddin stated that in the public appointment, the persons of “higher spiritual learning present” understood that along with the title of maazoon, he was also given the title of mansoos (successor), though the latter was not conveyed in as many words. Burhanuddin asked him to keep the private nass a secret, Qutbuddin claimed. He maintained that he had abided by the oath of secrecy given to him by the 52nd Dai till his death.

Senior advocate Anand Desai argued that as the Dai is “infallible” and as the Dai appoints a successor based on “divine inspiration of the Imam in seclusion”, the ‘nass’ or appointment of successor cannot be changed and revoked.

Qutbuddin died in 2016 in the USA. Since then, his son, Syedna Taher Fakhruddin is the plaintiff and is now seeking declaration as the leader by the High Court. Fakhruddin has claimed his father conferred the nass upon him and thus he should be declared the Dai.

What has Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin claimed?

Defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin made submissions through senior advocates Iqbal Chagla, Janak Dwarkadas and Fredun Devitre.

The lawyers argued that the nass of 1965 lacked witnesses and could not be accepted. They argued that as per established and prevalent doctrines of the Dawoodi Bohra faith, nass could be changed and revoked.

The senior advocates told the bench that on June 4, 2011, the 52nd Dai had conferred nass on Syedna Saifuddin in the presence of witnesses at the Bupa Cromwell hospital in London, where he was admitted after suffering a stroke.

Thirteen witnesses deposed on behalf of the defendant, which included the doctors who treated the 52nd Dai, son and grandson of the deceased Dai, and others with expertise in the Dawoodi Bohra doctrine, along with the rector of the community library.

The witnesses presented documents to show that the 52nd Dai, in the year 1969, had made his intention of appointing his son (defendant) as his successor and had informed close and senior members of the community about the same and the conferment was reiterated in 2005 in secret and reaffirmed publicly in June 2011.

The senior lawyers representing the defendant questioned the silence maintained by Syedna Qutbuddin about his claim to the post of Dai between 2011 and 2014, and said he only made the claim after the Dai’s demise as an “afterthought.”

The defendant also contended that even if nass had been conferred on the original plaintiff in 1965, as per the doctrinal belief of the community, only the last nass would be valid.