New Delhi: Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has had to encounter an expression of what appears to be a lack of faith in his manner of finalising the court’s opinion on his last working day at the Supreme Court.
He retires on November 10, Sunday, and so, he won’t hold court again, barring a last-minute exceptional matter of grave constitutional import.
The last judgment delivered by a constitutional bench headed by him on the important issue of whether the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Indian constitution, appears to have exposed a divide in court.
A perusal of the judgements, including the majority view contained in the opinion authored by CJI Chandrachud, which received concurrence of three other judges – Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra – shows Justice Dipankar Dutta lamenting. Justice Datta’s lament is very polite and concerns the manner in which the outgoing CJI has rushed through the judgment, without any meaningful discussion with judges like him.
Justice Datta’s portion of the judgment reads:
“Here, a Constitution Bench of 7 (seven) Judges had apparently embarked on a voyage to interpret Article 30(1) of the Constitution navigating through considerable weight of materials without any physical or virtual meeting of the members of the Bench post-reservation of judgment, not to speak of meeting of minds, either immediately after hearing was concluded or even 9 (nine) months thereafter (either collectively or even in small groups of four-five) to explore which acceptable direction should the outcome sail. 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, having regard to the immense pressure of work which we, the HCJI and the other Judges on the bench, have undertaken during the time ever since the judgment was reserved.”
Justice Datta also highlighted that there was no constructive discussion of rival points of view. His portion of the judgment says:
“Alas, without any insightful and constructive discussion of the rival contentions in the presence of all the members comprising this Bench of 7 (seven) Judges, it is only individual opinions of 4 (four) Judges that could be crafted and circulated for perusal and approval.”
Justice Dutta also points to the fact that the CJI circulated two drafts of his opinion, with a crucial paragraph having been deleted in the second draft:
“On 2nd November, 2024, came another few pages from the office of the HCJI containing corrections effected in quite a few of the paragraphs of the revised draft opinion in track changing mode with paragraph 72 being altogether deleted.”
The judgment in the matter was reserved on February 1 after eight days of hearings. Over eight months later, on October 17, the draft opinion authored by the CJI was circulated. It ran into 117 pages. About a week later, on October 25, the CJI sent a revised draft.
A few days later, on November 2, the CJI sent some more pages containing corrections in quite a few of the paragraphs and at least one paragraph deleted.
Justices Surya Kant and S.C. Sharma circulated their dissenting opinions on November 6.
The majority opinion penned by CJI Chandrachud overruled a 1968 five-judge bench judgment in S Azeez Basha versus Union of India which had held AMU was not a minority institution since it was brought into existence by the AMU Act, in 1920. The majority judgment has now referred the matter to a regular bench of three judges, to decide whether AMU is a minority status in light of the principles laid down by it now.
