On Friday(9th August), The Supreme Court recommended reconstituting the Maulana Azad Education Foundation’s general body, established in 1989 to support minority education. This follows an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold its dissolution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Friday(9th August), The Supreme Court of India suggested that the Central Government consider reconstituting the general body of the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF), a body established in 1989 to promote education among educationally backward minorities. This recommendation was made in the context of an appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling that upheld the Centre’s decision to dissolve the MAEF.
Background: Appeal Against Delhi High Court Verdict
A bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was hearing the appeal. The petitioners argued that the dissolution of the MAEF was flawed because the governing body comprised almost exclusively government officials, contrary to the foundation’s mandate that members should represent diverse walks of life.
Centre’s Opposition to the Allegations
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, strongly opposed the allegation that the dissolution was a “colourable exercise of power.” He clarified that the nominated members of the governing body came from various walks of life and were eligible to serve on the board.
“The nominated members belonged to various walks of life and were not ineligible either,”
-stated Mehta.
Supreme Court’s Suggestion: A Fresh Decision
During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench proposed an alternative approach to resolving the matter.
“Instead of referring the matter back to the Delhi High Court, we could ask you to reconstitute the general body and allow them to make a fresh decision on whether to dissolve the foundation.”
-suggested the bench.
In response to this suggestion, the Solicitor General mentioned that he would seek instructions from the relevant authorities.
The bench then scheduled the plea for further hearing on August 14.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Upholds Decision to Dissolve ‘Maulana Azad Education Foundation’
Foundation’s Dormancy and Financial Inactivity
At the outset of the hearing, the bench addressed senior advocate Anand Grover, representing the petitioners, including Syeda Saiyidain Hameed, stating that the resolution to dissolve the foundation was passed by a “competent body.”
Supporting the decision to dissolve the foundation, the Solicitor General pointed out that the MAEF was “virtually dormant” and not effectively utilizing its funds. This assertion was a critical element in justifying the Centre’s decision to disband the foundation.
Delhi High Court’s Ruling
In April of this year, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the MAEF’s dissolution. The High Court ruled that the decision was taken by the foundation’s general body and described it as “well considered.” The court further stated that it was “not impressed” by the objections raised by the petitioners.
“The decision to dissolve MAEF was properly made by its general body, and this court finds no impropriety or irregularity in the process used by the general body to reach that decision.”
– the Delhi High Court remarked.
Contention of the Petitioners
The petitioners, who approached the High Court earlier this year, contested the February 7 order from the Ministry of Minority Affairs, which directed the MAEF to initiate its closure process promptly. The ministry had also requested a copy of the closure certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies of the Delhi government after the completion of all necessary procedures.
The petitioners argued that the Ministry’s directive was not only jurisdictionally flawed but also “mala fide, arbitrary and a colourable exercise by authorities.” They contended that the closure of the MAEF would deprive deserving students, particularly girls, of the benefits offered by the foundation’s schemes.
Concerns Over Abrupt and Arbitrary Closure
In the PIL, filed through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, the petitioners described the decision to dismantle the foundation as “abrupt, opaque, and completely arbitrary.” They highlighted that the MAEF, which had been operational for nearly four decades, played a crucial role in supporting students, schools, and NGOs. The petitioners feared that the dissolution of the foundation would have a significantly adverse impact on the lives of numerous students and institutions relying on its support.
The Central Government defended its decision to dissolve the MAEF by arguing that the foundation had become “obsolete” in light of the Ministry of Minority Affairs’ comprehensive execution of schemes for minority welfare. The ministry’s order to dissolve the MAEF was based on a proposal received from the Central Wakf Council on January 21, which recommended the foundation’s closure.
