Section 2. Power to appoint Kazis for any local area
Wherever it appears to the State Government that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Ka’zi’s should be appointed for such local area, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Ka’zi’s for such local area.
If any question arises whether any person has been rightly appointed Ka’zi’ under this section, the decision thereof by the State Government shall be conclusive.
The State Government may, if it thinks fit, suspend or remove any Ka’zi’ appointed under this section who is guilty of any misconduct in the execution of his office, or who is for a continuous period of six months absent from the local area for which he is appointed, or leaves such local area for the purpose of residing elsewhere, or is declared an insolvent, or desires to be discharged from the office, or who refuses or becomes in the opinion of the State Government unfit, or personally incapable, to discharge the duties of the office.
How courts have applied section 2
- Section 2 permits the Government to appoint any number of Kazis for a local area; an existing Kazi has no exclusive right.1,2,3,4
- Consultation with principal Muhammadan residents is not mandatory; the discretion rests with the State Government.2
- Removal for misconduct requires natural justice and a fair inquiry with a specific show-cause notice, though the Act prescribes no procedure.5,3
- A Kazi with no specified tenure holds office for life, removable only on statutory grounds.3
- The Act confers no judicial or administrative powers on a Kazi and grants no privilege.6,7
- A Kazi can be vicariously liable for acts of Naib Qazis in the course of employment.8
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here deal almost entirely with the appointment and removal of Kazis under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880. Courts in these orders consistently upheld the State Government's power to appoint more than one Kazi for a local area, holding that the section places no ceiling on the number of appointments and that an existing Kazi has no exclusive right over the area. The decision whether to consult principal Muhammadan residents was treated as resting entirely with the Government and not mandatory, though some orders note the Act leaves the phrase 'principal Muhammadan residents' undefined.1,2,9,3,4,6
On removal, the judgements divide. Several hold that although Section 2 does not define 'misconduct' or prescribe an inquiry procedure, removal carrying civil consequences requires compliance with natural justice, including a fair inquiry and a specific show-cause notice. Another holds that absence of a statutory definition does not preclude a finding of misconduct where statutory responsibilities are demonstrably violated, and that removal after show-cause notices and consideration of explanations needs no Article 226 interference. A further order upholds a Kazi's power to appoint Naib Qazis and dismisses challenges to removal, stating the Act does not mandate a specific statutory procedure involving natural justice.5,3,10,7
Courts also clarified the scope of the office. The Act does not confer judicial or administrative powers on a Kazi, grants no privilege, and does not prevent Muslims from appointing others to perform functions of government-appointed Kazis. A Kazi appointed without a specified tenure holds office for life and can be removed only on the statutory grounds. A Kazi may be held vicariously responsible for acts of Naib Qazis committed in the course of employment, and removal can follow where a Kazi fails to countersign marriage booklets or where divorce certificates are issued prematurely during the iddat period. Several petitions seeking appointment as Kazi were dismissed as barred by earlier affirmed orders, with liberty only to file fresh representations, while one court set aside a rejection where a qualified candidate was recommended by the Tahsildar after local enquiry.6,7,3,10,8,11,12,13,14
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 2
Telangana HC Division Bench (Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ and G.M. Mohiuddin, J), Writ Appeal No.90 of 2026 (clause 15 Letters Patent), judgment dated 11-02-2026: writ appeal allowed; order dated 25.11.2025 in W.P.No.24449 of 2025 set aside;
AllowedOpenKazi's Act 1880 Section 2 — appointment of additional/second Government Khazi for the same mandal; G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 16.07.2025, Minority Welfare (IDM-I) Department; Atmakur Mandal, Nandyal District (erstwhile Kurnool);
DismissedOpenAndhra Pradesh High Court (K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J) dismissed Writ Petition No.16963 of 2025 filed by an incumbent Government Kazi (Shaik Hussain) challenging G.O.Ms.Nos.58 & 59, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) Department, dated 03.07.2025, whereby respondents 5 and 6 were appointed Government Kazis for Eluru-II Town and…
DismissedOpenSk Salman Ali vs State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P.A. No. 20391 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta, Krishna Rao J., judgment 25.02.2026 (hearing concluded 09.02.2026). Muslim Marriage Registrar (MMR/Kazi) appointment dispute, Haripal and Jangipara Police Stations, District Hooghly; Notification No.
DisposedOpenPetitioner again challenged the State's refusal to appoint him Kazi after his earlier identical writ petition was dismissed and review rejected. The Division Bench found no ground to take a different view and dismissed the petition, leaving respondents free to consider his claim per the Supreme Court's observations.
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 10-12; willful violation; deliberate disobedience; contempt case closed; liberty to pursue remedies; no costs; W.P. No. 33600 of 2023; order dated 01.04.2024; Kazis Act 1880 Section 2; Khazi appointment; Government Khazi; Matoor Village; Madhira Mandal; Khammam District;
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Writ petition seeking direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's pending representation dated 04.03.2024 for appointment as Government Khazi for Pargi Mandal.
DisposedOpenA government-appointed Additional Kazi challenged his removal through G.O.Rt.No.65 on grounds that no enquiry or specific misconduct was disclosed. The High Court found show-cause notices had been issued, that acts of his Naib Khazis bore his mandatory signature and constituted misconduct, and dismissed the petition…
DismissedOpenKerala High Court, Ernakulam (Mohammed Nias C.P., J), WP(C) No. 14010 of 2019, decided 02.04.2025, neutral citation 2025:KER:27989. Dismissal of writ challenge by Ibrahimkutty Haji to Government appointment (Ext.P1 notification dated 06.03.2019) of Sayyed Ibrahim-ul Khaleel Thangal as Kazi for Tirurangadi Municipality…
DismissedOpenGovernment Khazi tenure dispute; Kazis Act 1880 Section 2; appointment and renewal G.O.s: G.O.Ms.No.91 (15.03.2011), G.O.Rt.No.115 (14.09.2015), G.O.Rt.No.50 (11.05.2021), G.O.Rt.No.61 (21.02.2023) extending tenure 14.09.2021 to 13.09.2024; Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department;
DisposedOpenPetitioner, Kazi for Madurai Town since 1981, challenged a government order appointing another person as Kazi for Madurai District. The court held the new appointment did not remove him: Section 2 of the Kazis Act permits multiple Kazis and removal only with notice and enquiry. Writ disposed with clarification.
DisposedOpenA Government Kazi challenged the appointment of another Kazi for three mandals within his division. The Court held that Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 permits appointment of more than one Kazi for a local area and vests no exclusive territorial right in an existing Kazi. The writ petition was closed without costs.
DisposedOpen
Division Bench addressed questions referred by Single Judge regarding the Kazis Act, 1880. The Court held the Act does not confer judicial or administrative powers on Kazis and does not prevent Muslims from appointing other persons for ceremonies.
DismissedOpenWrit petition challenging rejection of petitioner's application for appointment as Khazi for Kohir Mandal, Medak District under the Kazis Act, 1880. Court held the petitioner possessed required qualifications and the Tahsildar had recommended him;
AllowedOpenPetitioner again challenged the State's refusal to appoint him Kazi after his earlier identical writ petition was dismissed and review rejected. The Division Bench found no ground to take a different view and dismissed the petition, leaving respondents free to consider his claim per the Supreme Court's observations.
Petitioner again challenged the State's refusal to appoint him Kazi after his earlier identical writ petition was dismissed and review rejected. The Division Bench found no ground to take a different view and dismissed the petition, leaving respondents free to consider his claim per the Supreme Court's observations.
The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition seeking reinstatement as Naib Qazi. The court held that a Kazi appointed under the Kazis Act, 1880 is an authority competent to appoint and remove Naib Qazis under Section 2 and the General Clauses Act lack statutory status requiring natural justice procedures…
DismissedOpenThe High Court allowed two writ petitions against the State of Telangana and a Qazi. The Court held the petitioner vicariously liable for crimes by his subordinates and directed the State to initiate action under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 following due process.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Two petitioners challenged a government order appointing Mohammed Sirajuddin as Government Kazi for Sultan Bazar Zone, Hyderabad, alleging it ignored their applications and was driven by an MLA recommendation contrary to Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880.
DismissedOpenTwo petitioners claiming Naib Kazi lineage challenged the State's appointment of Mohammed Sirajuddin as Government Kazi for Sultan Bazar Zone. Holding consultation with principal Muhammadan residents under Section 2 had occurred and no legal right vested in the petitioners, the Court dismissed both writ petitions.
DismissedOpenThe Court disposed of writ petitions challenging an appointment order and seeking implementation of another. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's objection regarding the appointment process, provide opportunities to relevant parties, and pass expeditious appropriate orders regarding the Kazi…
DisposedOpenPetitioner claiming hereditary succession sought quashing of GOMs No.86 appointing respondent No.4 as Khazi and his own appointment. The court held Section 2 of the Kazis Act contemplates no hereditary succession and found no illegality in the impugned order, dismissing the petition while leaving him free to complain…
DismissedOpen