Aligarh Muslim University case: Bench didn’t hold meaningful consultations, says Justice Dipankar Datta

A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on November 8, 2024 delivered four separate judgements in a case related to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University. Photo: Supreme Court of India via PTI

Supreme Court judge, Justice Dipankar Datta, in his separate dissenting opinion in the Aligarh Muslim University case, revealed there was hardly any meaningful consultation on the judgment among the seven judges of the Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.

The draft opinions from the Chief Justice, which became the majority opinion and judgment of the court, reached him late and were constantly revised.

Also read: SC verdict on AMU minority status: University’s teachers’ body welcomes judgment

A brief consultation by the Bench was held only on November 7.

Also eead: Owaisi hails Supreme Court ruling on AMU’s minority status

Justice Datta compared his “unenviable position” to that of Justice M.P. Thakar, a junior member of a five-judge Constitution Bench, in 1985. Justice Datta quoted the latter’s words of how the consultative process was given a miss, “a ‘give’ and ‘take’ of ideas, with due respect for the holders of the opposite point of view (in a true democratic spirit of tolerance), with willingness to accord due consideration to the same, would not have impaired the search for the true solution. Or hurt the cause of justice”.

Justice Datta said the heavy workload of the judges may have been the reason behind the lack of any consultations.

“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 CJI and the other judges on the Bench, have undertaken during the time ever since the judgment was reserved,” Justice Datta said.

The judge said his ordeal of waiting for the draft opinions that came late – one on the eve of the Deepavali break – and squeezing in time between regular court work gave him little time to read and prepare his opinion.

“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 November 6, 2024, the limit I had set for myself and assured to the CJI, the opinion could have been much better articulated and more compact,” Justice Datta said.