SC on AMU minority status: Dissent flags judicial impropriety, legal stability

The two-judge bench’s decision to request a larger bench review was in line with the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra CommVs State of Maha (2005) case.

The Supreme Court’s majority decision in the AMU case on Friday sparked a significant judicial debate, bringing forward stark dissenting opinions by justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. While Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, writing for himself and three other judges, defended the procedural validity of the case’s referral to a seven-judge bench, the dissenting judges warned that the referral compromised judicial propriety, respect for established precedents and the CJI’s administrative authority.

Supreme Court (File photo)

The CJI,