In the AMU case, Justice Surya Kant addressed a 1981 reference that questioned the Chief Justice’s authority, deeming it flawed in law. He argued that the 1981 interpretation undermines judicial structure and emphasized the importance of respecting the Chief Justice’s role in upholding judicial integrity. Justice Kant’s stance reinforces the need for judicial clarity and the appropriate exercise of authority within the court system.
New Delhi: Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant criticized a two-judge bench’s reference to a larger bench regarding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University, calling it “bad in law.”
He argued that this action undermined the authority of the Chief Justice of India as the master of the roster.
In 1981, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court questioned the validity of a 1967 ruling that determined Aligarh Muslim University was not a minority institution, as it was established by a central law. This bench referred the matter to a larger bench for further examination.
The original 1967 verdict issued by a five-judge Constitution bench in the case of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India.
Justice Surya Kant described the 1981 referral of the Azeez Basha decision to a seven-judge bench as “bad in law and ought to be set aside.” Citing precedent from a Constitution bench, he emphasized that “a two-judge bench has no authority whatsoever to doubt or disagree with a judgment of the larger bench” and cannot directly escalate it to a bench with a greater numerical strength.
Justice Surya Kant criticized the 1981 reference by the two-judge bench in the Anjuman case, calling it,
“Nothing but a challenge to the authority of the Chief Justice of India as the master of the roster and undermining the special powers vested in the Chief Justice under Article 145 of the Constitution.”
He argued that the reference was “not maintainable.”
As part of a seven-judge Constitution bench, which by a 4:3 majority overruled the 1967 judgment, Justice Kant concurred with the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, which stated that a regular bench would decide AMU’s minority status. Justice Kant, in his separate 102-page opinion, noted that the 1981 two-judge bench had wrongly specified that the review bench should comprise seven judges.
He said,
“Such a reference, is not consistent with the established norms of judicial propriety.”
Justice Kant emphasized that only the Chief Justice of India, as the custodian of judicial authority, should determine the composition of benches and assign matters without a specific reference. He expressed his disagreement with the two-judge bench dictating its viewpoint on the composition of the bench, asserting,
“With utmost respect at our command, we do not appreciate how a two-judge bench could dictate its viewpoint to the Chief Justice of India.”
He warned that allowing such practices would undermine the authority of the Chief Justice and create procedural complications, potentially embarrassing the judiciary.
Justice Surya Kant criticized the 1981 reference in the Anjuman case, where a two-judge bench questioned the validity of the five-judge ruling in Azeez Basha, stating,
“The reference…suffers from multiple illegalities, including judicial impropriety.”
Justice Kant also clarified that minority institutions established before the Constitution came into effect are entitled to the protections granted under Article 30, which ensures the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
He stated,
“To seek protection under Article 30 of our Constitution, the minority institution must satisfy the conjunctive test: that it was established by a minority community and has been or is being administered by such a community.”