Abdul Qadir | Team TrickyScribe: “Justice delayed is justice denied”—so goes the saying, yet justice delivered in instalments may feel equally unfulfilling. The recent judgment by a seven-judge constitution bench in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case reversed a 57-year-old ruling, sparking celebration. However, this outcome can only be regarded as partial justice.
Judgement on Minority Criteria Left Unresolved
The seven-judge bench, led by the outgoing Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, defined the criteria for granting minority status to institutions. However, whether AMU meets these criteria has been left to a smaller bench to determine, leaving the matter unresolved.
Supreme Court’s Scope under Article 142
Without delving into technicalities, it’s worth noting that Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court broad and discretionary powers. The constitution bench could have used these powers to resolve the question of AMU’s minority character outright. The same article was invoked by the court in the Ayodhya case to allocate the disputed site, catering to majority sentiments.
Necessary Documents Already with the Bench
Interestingly, the constitution bench already had access to all required documents to assess AMU’s status. By referring the matter to a smaller bench, the Supreme Court seems to have contradicted its own concerns about rising litigation.
Justice Delivery and Divine Directions
If recent developments are to be believed, beyond the constitution and laws, “divine directions” have influenced judicial decisions. There is speculation about what might happen if members of the proposed three-judge bench seek divine guidance to ascertain AMU’s status.
Criteria for Determining Minority Status
The Supreme Court’s prescribed tests for an institution’s minority character include examining the origin and purpose of its establishment, along with the founding community’s involvement. This proof could encompass letters, funding records, and communications affirming that the institution was primarily intended to benefit the minority community.
Challenges Faced by AMU’s Supporters
Supporters of AMU’s minority status seem confident, but they may underestimate the intense scrutiny of legal experts. As AMU’s donation records reportedly do not specify donors’ religious affiliations, reliance might fall on Islamic names, a method that could face complications due to shared names between communities.
Religious Ambiguity Surrounding Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the university’s founder, was reportedly labeled a “kafir” (infidel) by some Muslim clerics for his advocacy of Western education. This included opposition from poet Akbar Allahabadi. Such a history may raise questions about his religious stance, adding complexity to the AMU’s claim.
A Lengthy Judicial Process Ahead
India’s justice system, often criticized as “adjournment-centric,” tends to move at a slow pace. Many won’t be surprised if the smaller bench takes years, possibly decades, to reach a decision on AMU’s minority status. As the saying goes, “Kal kisne dekha hai” (Who has seen tomorrow?). For now, we find ourselves in the interval of the ongoing “legal soap opera” surrounding AMU.
Total Views: 3,69,639