Not enough time, talks: Justice Datta

In a notable dissent in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status judgment, Justice Dipankar Datta raised concerns regarding the internal processes leading to the decision and the treatment of precedent, particularly the lack of collaborative engagement among the seven judges involved. His opinion expressed unease with how the deliberative process unfolded and raised caution about rushing judgment on such a complex issue.

- Utkarsh Anand

Justice Datta's critique began by outlining procedural issues in the judgment drafting process. He noted that after the hearing concluded on February 1, 2024, he received the first draft of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud's judgment only on October 17, with just weeks remaining before the November 10 deadline when the CJI had to demit office.

"The task of authoring the judgment had not been assigned to me, which obviously left me with no other option but to wait for the draft opinion... While the wait continued, it is only on 17th October, 2024, that the draft opinion authored by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, being the presiding Judge of the bench, numbering 117 pages, was placed on my desk. Aware of the deadline of 10th November, 2024... the task of reading the learned dissertation started right away," he stated. The judge further spoke of the rapid succession of drafts that followed, with substantial changes even as the judgment neared its release date.

Justice Datta noted a significant revision on October 25, which "defenestrated" the view that the 1967 judgment in the Azeez Basha case barred AMU from claiming minority status -- a shift that deeply concerned him, as this precedent had been in place for over 50 years.