Four key Supreme Court verdicts this week as CJI DY Chandrachud set to demit office

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver judgments in at least four important cases this week - the last for Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud who is set to demit office on November 10..November 8 will be his last working day. Various Benches headed by him will be delivering judgments on the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act of 2004, the wealth redistribution issue and dispute over the ownership of Jet Airways..On February 1, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions concerning whether the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.The Court had heard the matter for eight days.The questions of law involved in the matter concerns the parameters for granting an educational institution minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution, and whether a centrally-funded university established by parliamentary statute can be designated a minority institution.The matter was referred to a seven-judge in February 2019 by a bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.AMU was held to be a Central University by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case of S Azeez Basha vs Union of India. However, the minority status of the institute was later reinstated by bringing in an amendment to the AMU Act of 1920. The amendment was brought about in the year 1981.This was challenged before the Allahabad High Court which in 2006 set aside the move as being unconstitutional..Supreme Court reserves verdict on minority status of Aligarh Muslim University .On May 1, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih reserved its judgment on the issue of whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution and thus taken over by state authorities to subserve the "common good".The reference arose in the context of the two conflicting views taken by the top court in 1978 in cases which dealt with the nationalisation of road transport services.The Court will also settle the position on Article 31C of Constitution, which protects laws enacted to secure the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) laid down in Part IV of the Constitution..On October 22, a three-judge bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reserved its verdict on batch of pleas challenging Allahabad High Court's March 22 decision to declare UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional.While staying the High Court's order in April, the Court had noted that the High Court misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act since it does not provide only for religious instruction.The purpose and nature of the Act is regulatory in nature, the top court had added.The Court had also said that even if the petition before the High Court (which had challenged the Act's validity) was meant to ensure that secular education is provided at madrasas, the remedy was not to strike down the Act.While striking down the act, the High Court had expressed apprehensions about potential instances of arbitrary decision-making and stressed the importance of transparency in the management of educational institutions.The High Court had concluded that the Madarsa Act also violated Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 21A (right to education for children between six and fourteen years of age) of the Constitution, apart from Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956..On October 16, a three-judge bench of CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had reserved its verdict in the dispute over the ownership of Jet Airways between Jalan Kalrock Consortium (JKC) and a number of the airline's former lenders led by State Bank of India (SBI).In January 2023, the NCLT allowed JKC to take ownership of Jet Airways. The following month, the lenders appealed to the NCLAT against the NCLT's ownership transfer order, but the NCLAT declined to grant any injunction in their favour.On March 12 that year, the NCLAT confirmed the transfer of ownership of the grounded airline to JKC.The lenders and former employees of the airline moved the Supreme Court against this order.