The Supreme Court is expected to deliver judgments in at least four important cases this week – the last for Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud who is set to demit office on November 10. November 8 will be his last working day. Various Benches headed by him will be delivering judgments on the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act of 2004, the wealth redistribution issue and dispute over the ownership of Jet Airways.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: As Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud prepares to step down on November 10, significant attention is focused on the Supreme Court as it is set to deliver judgments on at least four key cases this week.
November 8 will mark CJI Chandrachud’s final working day.
Various benches under his leadership are poised to make decisions on pivotal legal matters, including the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act of 2004, wealth redistribution policies, and the ownership conflict surrounding Jet Airways.
AMU Minority Status
On February 1, a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma reserved judgment on multiple petitions questioning the minority status of AMU under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. This article provides minority communities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
The Supreme Court previously deliberated over eight days on the legal parameters for determining whether an institution qualifies for minority status. The central issue is whether a centrally funded university, established by a parliamentary act, can be designated as a minority institution. The case was initially referred to a seven-judge bench in February 2019 by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
Historically, the Supreme Court declared AMU a central university in the 1968 case of S Azeez Basha vs Union of India. However, an amendment to the AMU Act of 1920 in 1981 sought to reinstate its minority status. This amendment was contested and struck down by the Allahabad High Court in 2006 as unconstitutional.
Wealth Redistribution Issue
On May 1, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and including Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih reserved its decision on whether private property can be classified as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This determination would influence whether such resources can be seized by the state to serve the “common good.”
The need for clarity emerged due to conflicting judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in 1978 over nationalizing road transport services. Additionally, the bench is expected to provide guidance on Article 31C, which shields laws made to implement Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in Part IV of the Constitution.
Validity of the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
On October 22, a three-judge bench, including CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, reserved its verdict on a series of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 judgment, which declared the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act of 2004 unconstitutional.
In April, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s decision, pointing out that the High Court had misinterpreted the provisions of the Madarsa Act. The bench noted,
“The High Court misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act since it does not provide only for religious instruction.”
The apex court emphasized that the Act serves a regulatory purpose.
The Supreme Court further stated that,
“Even if the petition before the High Court was meant to ensure that secular education is provided at madrasas, the remedy was not to strike down the Act.”
The Allahabad High Court had invalidated the Act, citing potential issues of arbitrary decision-making and a lack of transparency in educational management.
The court argued that the Act contravened Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 21A (right to education for children aged six to fourteen) of the Constitution, as well as Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Ownership Dispute of Jet Airways
On October 16, a three-judge bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, reserved its judgment in the ownership dispute over Jet Airways. The case centers around the Jalan Kalrock Consortium (JKC) and a consortium of former lenders led by the State Bank of India (SBI).
In January 2023, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) authorized JKC to take control of the airline. In response, the lenders challenged the decision before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) the following month, but the appellate body did not grant an injunction in their favor.
On March 12, 2023, the NCLAT upheld the NCLT’s decision to transfer ownership of the grounded airline to JKC. The Supreme Court is now tasked with ruling on the appeal filed by the lenders and former employees of Jet Airways against this order.
These four judgments are pivotal, each touching upon significant constitutional and socio-economic issues, and they will serve as defining moments in CJI DY Chandrachud’s legacy as he prepares to leave office.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Chandrachud
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
