Not enough time, talks: Justice Datta
The judge further spoke of the rapid succession of drafts that followed, with substantial changes even as the judgment neared its release date.
In a notable dissent in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status judgment, justice Dipankar Datta raised concerns regarding the internal processes leading to the decision and the treatment of precedent, particularly the lack of collaborative engagement among the seven judges involved. His opinion expressed unease with how the deliberative process unfolded and raised caution about rushing judgment on such a complex issue.
Justice Datta’s critique began by outlining procedural issues in the judgment drafting process. He noted that after the hearing concluded on February 1, 2024, he received the first draft of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud’s judgment only on October 17, with just weeks remaining before the November 10 deadline when the CJI had to demit office.
“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...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. Aware of the deadline of 10th November, 2024... the task of reading the learned dissertation started right away,” he stated.
The judge further spoke of the rapid succession of drafts that followed, with substantial changes even as the judgment neared its release date. Justice Datta noted a significant revision on October 25, which “defenestrated” the view that the 1967 judgment in the Azeez Basha case barred AMU from claiming minority status -- a shift that deeply concerned him, as this precedent had been in place for over 50 years.
“Inter alia, there was one very significant change in the revised draft… the view taken in Azeez Basha that AMU is not a minority institution. Such view has stood its ground for the last more than 50 years,” noted the opinion.
Justice Datta further voiced his frustration at the absence of any meetings among the judges after the February hearing, regretting the lack of a “meeting of minds” and stressed that without such discussions, true judicial consensus on such a pivotal issue was unlikely.
He expressed his “pain” that despite all the advancements in the justice delivery system that is proudly talked about, “in a way history seems to have repeated itself”. The judge referred to a 1985 ruling in Union of India Vs Tulsiram Patel case wherein one of the judges on the bench had underlined that it was appropriate if a meeting of the judges constituting the bench that he was a part of had been convened to seriously deliberate and evolve a consensus as to whether or not to overrule a ruling that had held the field for last 10 years.
“Here, a Constitution bench of 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 nine months thereafter (either collectively or even in small groups of four-five) to explore which acceptable direction should the outcome sail,” rued justice Datta.
The judge added: “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 back seat...” Justice Datta cited immense pressure of judicial and administrative work that weighed down the judges.
“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 added.
Only on November 7, when the final drafts were almost complete, did the judges meet briefly when it was disclosed that the CJI’s opinion had the concurrence of three judges and thus, formed the majority.
However, justice Datta was quick to add that although in minority, his view diverged from the other two judges in the minority – justices Surya Kant and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Where the other two judges, like the majority, sought to establish new criteria and defer the matter to a separate bench, justice Datta noted that enough evidence was already before the court to make a determination. He viewed the decision to revisit the AMU issue as a waste of judicial resources and advocated for a final ruling:
“In present times, when there is a lot of emphasis on pendency of cases and expeditious disposal thereof, precious judicial time would be wasted if the same issue has to be agitated yet again,” he underlined.
In his analysis, justice Datta contended that AMU was not a minority institution under Article 30(1) as it had neither been established nor was it administered by a religious minority group. For him, the historical, legal, and factual evidence already presented was sufficient to deny AMU’s minority status claim: “I conclude that the claim of the AMU cannot stand… AMU does not qualify as a minority institution. Protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is, thus, not available,” he held.
Justice Datta further noted that in view of the majority opinion, the grant of minority status to AMU was a “foregone conclusion”.
“I have noted that as per the draft opinion of the CJI, the question as to whether AMU ‘is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgment’. In view of such proposed order, and since it is also the majority opinion now and thus final, it is a foregone conclusion that history would be rewritten and declaration of AMU by this court as a minority educational institution is only a matter of time,” he said.