AMU verdict: Justice Dipankar Datta laments lack of constructive discussion among judges

Supreme Court judge Justice Dipankar Datta on Friday expressed his anguish with the seemingly late circulation of the draft majority judgment in the Aligarh Muslim University case, and the subsequent lack of meaningful meetings to discuss the verdict.

The majority opinion, which held that the minority status of an educational institute will not cease merely because Parliament enacts a regulatory law, was drafted by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud.

The prologue of Justice Datta's dissenting opinion outlines the ordeal he faced due to the lack of what is otherwise meant to be a consultative decision-making process.

The series of events meant he had to take out time meant for other judicial work, Justice Datta's opinion shows.

To start of, he spoke of how the CJI's draft reached him only on October 17, about three weeks before the former's retirement.

"Hearing of these appeals and petitions commenced on 9th January, 2024. Spread over 8 (eight) days of marathon hearing, learned senior counsel/counsel advanced erudite arguments...Judgment was reserved on 1st February, 2024. 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. While the wait continued, it is only on 17th October, 2024 that the draft opinion authored by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, being the presiding Judge of the Bench, numbering 117 pages was placed on my desk."

The CJI's impending retirement meant that Justice Datta was left with little time to ponder over the case in light of the draft opinion, he explained.

"Aware of the deadline of 10th November, 2024 (the day the HCJI would demit office) within which the final judgment had to be pronounced, the task of reading the learned dissertation started right away squeezing out time from the long hours that had to be spent in getting ready for the matters on board for each day and in conducting proceedings in court."

However, moments after Justice Datta was done examining the CJI's opinion, a revised opinion was sent.

Utilising the short Diwali break, the revised draft opinion was read many times over, Justice Datta explained, only for more corrections to arrive on November 2.

"Difficult though it is to disagree with any opinion penned by the HCJI, which has always been a product of thorough research and high intellect and is thoughtfully expressed, I could not persuade myself to completely agree with the opinion expressed in the revised drafts and the whole of the proposed conclusions recorded therein. 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."

The separate opinions of Justices Kant and Sharma came on November 6, Justice Datta's opinion reveals.

"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 6th November, 2024, the limit I had set for myself and assured to the HCJI, the opinion could have been much better articulated and more compact."

Justice Datta minced no works in revealing the lack of proper meetings and consultation to deliberate on the case. For this case, important aspects of decision-making took a backseat, Justice Datta lamented.

"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. Judicial and administrative works of varied nature, which I need not dilate here, also weighed me down to such an extent that sending a request to the HCJI for a meeting of all the colleagues at this stage would have been too late to make a difference (if at all it were to happen)."

The judgments that eventually arrived were penned without any meaningful discussions or sharing of insights, Justice Datta added.

"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."

Only after circulation of his draft opinion did all the judges on the Bench have the occasion to very briefly meet yesterday (November 7), Justice Datta revealed.

"As the narrative would reveal, my view diverges from the other 2 (two) Judges in the minority. 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."

The majority comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra overruled the 1968 judgment in S Azeez Basha v. Union of India in which it was held that the minority character of AMU had ceased because of parliamentary a law regulating the University.

The verdict came in a batch of petitions concerning whether AMU is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court had in February reserved its judgment in the matter, after a eight-day hearing.

[Read Judgment]