AMU order: Dissenting judge flags lack of time, non-exchange of ideas

Aligarh Muslim University is not a minority educational institution, Supreme Court's Justice Dipankar Datta said on Friday and noted had it not been a "race against time" he would have articulated better in his dissenting opinion.

The judge also flagged a non-exchange of ideas and opinions in a "true democratic spirit" to build a consensus.

"A common venue for a purposeful and effective dialogue where members of the bench could freely express their points of view; an attempt to share thoughts and to exchange opinions; a 'give' and 'take' of ideas, in true democratic spirit to build up a consensus -- all these seem to have taken a backseat ...," he wrote in his verdict.

He underscored the immense work pressure on the judges ever since the judgment was reserved in the matter. Justice Datta pointed out that judicial and administrative works of varied nature had also weighed him down and sending a request to the CJI for a meeting of all the colleagues at that stage would have been too late to make a difference.

"Alas, without any insightful and constructive discussion of the rival contentions in the presence of all the members comprising this bench of seven judges, it is only individual opinions of four judges that could be crafted and circulated for perusal and approval," he said.

In a separate 88-page view over the contentious issue of the university's minority status, Justice Datta noted the judgment was reserved in the matter on February 1, 2024, while the draft opinion of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud came to him on October 17.

"I do not grudge getting very little time to express my views in the manner I would have wished to express. Had it not been a race against time to circulate the opinion by November 6, 2024, the limit I had set for myself and assured to the CJI, the opinion could have been much better articulated and more compact," he said.

He revealed the separate draft opinions of Justices Surya Kant and Satish Chandra Sharma, who were members of the seven-judge bench, came on November 6.

Justice Datta was part of a seven-judge Constitution bench headed by the CJI, who by way of a 4:3 verdict, overruled the 1967 judgment that held the university couldn't be considered a minority institution since it was created by a central law.

The 4:3 majority verdict, authored by the CJI in 118 pages, also on behalf of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked a new bench to decide the minority status issue.

"The task of authoring the judgment had not been assigned to me, which obviously left me with no other option but to wait for the draft opinion to reach my residential office," Justice Datta said in the prologue of his verdict.

"While the wait continued, it was only on October 17, 2024 that the draft opinion, authored by the Chief Justice of India, being the presiding judge of the bench, numbering 117 pages was placed on my desk," he said.

Aware of the November 10 deadline, date of CJI demitting office, within which the final judgment had to be pronounced, Justice Datta said he started reading the dissertation right away while squeezing time in between the long hours spent on preparing for daily matters and conducting court proceedings.

No sooner had he completed reading the draft opinion, Justice Datta revealed that he received a revised draft opinion, running into an equal number of pages as the previous one, of the CJI.

"It reached my residential office in the evening of October 25, 2024, that is, on the eve of the short Diwali break. Inter alia, there was one very significant change in the revised draft," he said.

The revised draft opinion of the CJI, he said, included the rejection of the view taken in the 1967 verdict in the Azeez Basha case that AMU was not a minority institution.

He said on November 2, 2024, came another few pages from the CJI's office containing corrections in quite a few of the paragraphs of the revised draft opinion.

The judge said he could not persuade himself to completely agree with the opinion expressed in the revised drafts and the whole of the proposed conclusions recorded in them.

"This is when I had decided to pen my own opinion encapsulating my thoughts in brief having regard to the very short time at my disposal," he said.

Justice Datta said after circulation of his draft opinion, all the judges of the bench had the occasion to meet together for a little while on November 7, when it emerged that the opinion of the CJI had the concurrence of three judges.

"Since it was revealed in the aforesaid meeting that my view did not align with the majority, my draft opinion warranted certain changes and such changes have been incorporated in this final opinion without changing the core foundation thereof," he noted.

Justice Datta concluded that AMU was neither established by a religious community nor was it administered by one regarded as a minority community.

"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, but also declared that AMU is not a minority educational institution and that the appeals seeking minority status for it should fail," he held.

Justices Kant, Datta and Sharma wrote separate opinions on the issue.