AMU Not A Minority Institution As It Is Neither Established Nor Administered By A Minority Religious Community: Justice Dipankar Datta’s Dissenting Opinion
Justice Dipankar Datta in his dissenting opinion observed that AMU does not qualify as a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution as it was neither established by any religious community, nor is it administered by a religious community regarded as a minority.
The Supreme Court by a 4:3 majority overruled the decision of a Constitution Bench in S Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968) in a batch of petitions seeking 'minority status' for the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The isuue was placed before a regular bench for deciding whether AMU is a minority educational institution.
Justice Dipankar Datta in his dissenting judgment stated, “I find myself being drawn to the irresistible conclusion that AMU has not been administered by a minority community at any point in time. The Act places the ultimate control of the University with the Central Government and the Central Government and its predecessor have been administering AMU since 1920.”
The Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra held the majoirty opinion, while Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dissented.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Nikhil Nayyar and Shadan Farasat represented the appellant, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.
In Azeez Basha (supra), the Supreme Court held that for an institution to qualify as a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, it must be both “established and administered by the minority community.” The Court interpreted Article 30(1) conjunctively, meaning that these rights to “establish and administer” must be exercised together. Thus, if an educational institution was not established by a religious minority, then the community cannot claim the right to administer it under Article 30(1). This decision concluded that AMU did not qualify as a minority institution because it was neither established nor administered by a minority community.
Justice Datta’s dissent focused on the referral process, questioning the appropriateness of a ‘two-Judge Bench’ referring the correctness of a decision by a Constitution Bench to a larger seven-Judge Bench. He pointed out that "judicial discipline" requires that only a "Bench of equal strength" may question the correctness of a previous decision of the Supreme Court.
Justice Datta’s remarked, “Decisions of high authority seek to reinforce the principles of judicial discipline, propriety and comity, which have been followed by the courts since time immemorial. Permitting a bench of lesser strength to doubt a decision given by a bench of greater strength and to refer a given issue to a still larger bench would be in the teeth of principles which are well-established and well-entrenched. Doctrines of precedents and stare decisis provide a level of certainty to individuals appearing before the court and bring a degree of objectivity in a largely subjective decision-making process.”
Justice Datta referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) which clarified that “only a Bench of equal strength” can raise doubt over a decision by a larger Bench. He pointed out that the Chief Justice of India alone has the authority to place matters before a larger Bench, pointing out that “only the Chief Justice” can refer cases in such a manner to maintain the integrity of judicial processes.
“Respectfully, I cannot bring myself to traverse the same path. After almost 9 (nine) months the judgment came to be reserved, it pricks my conscience to send the matter back once again to an appropriate bench; more so, after both sides have exhaustively addressed us on the very issue as to whether AMU answers the characteristics of a minority institution. In present times, when there is a lot of emphasis on pendency of cases and expeditious disposal thereof, precious judicial time would be wasted if the same issue has to be agitated yet again when such time could be well utilised in answering other pressing questions of law. I feel the urge to decide here and now, based on whatever indicia we identify or formulate, as well as the circumstances - antecedent, attending and surrounding – of the relevant time, as to whether AMU is a minority educational institution or not. I feel equipped to do so on account of extensive evidence having already been led by both sides” the Judge remarked.
Consequently, it was observed, “In terms of clause (5) of Article 145 of the Constitution, it is my firm opinion that not only do the references not require an answer, it is also declared that AMU is not a minority educational institution and that the appeals seeking minority status for it should fail.”
Cause Title: Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 856)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Nikhil Nayyar and Shadan Farasat; Advocates Aftab Ali Khan, Bahar U. Barqui, Nizam Pasha, Aparjita Jamwal, Ali Safeer Farooqi, Rupali Samuels, Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Rishabh Parikh, Z. K. Faizan, Mohd. Taiyub Khan, Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Mansoor Alir, N Sai Vinod, Siddharth Vasudev, Gayatri Gulati, Naveen Hegde, Debadutta Kanungo, Omanakuttan K K, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Rambha Singh, Gautam Bhatia, Harshit Anand, Aman Naqvi, Shadab Azhar; AORs T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Prashant Bhushan, Sushma Suri, Govind Jee, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ramesh Kumar Mishra and Sanchita Ain
Respondents: Attorney General R. Venkataramani; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; ASG Vikramjit Banerjee and K.M. Nataraj; Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Guru Krishnakumar, Nachiketa Joshi, Vinay Navare, Sridhar Potaraju, Archana Pathak Dave, Salman Khurshid and Yatindra Singh; Advocates Kartikay Aggarwal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Gaurang Bhushan, Madhav Sinhal, Padmesh Mishra, Kanu Agrawal, Ankur Talwar, Rohit Khare, Apporv Kurup, Diwakar Sharma, Siddhartha Sinha, Aastha Singh, Aman Mehta, Tanmay Mehta, Santosh Kumar, VVV Pattabhiram, et al; AORs Amrish Kumar, R. C. Kohli, Shuchi Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Sushma Suri, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ejaz Maqbool, et al
