Dissent flags judicial impropriety, legal stability

The Supreme Court's majority decision in the AMU case on Friday sparked a significant judicial debate, bringing forward stark dissenting opinions by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.

- 

While Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, writing for himself and three other judges, defended the procedural validity of the case's referral to a seven-judge bench, the dissenting judges warned that the referral compromised judicial propriety, respect for established precedents and the CJI's administrative authority.

The CJI, supported by the majority, upheld the referral order made by a two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmania (1981), which raised doubts about the five-judge bench Azeez Basha judgment (which decided against AMU's minority status) and requested a review by a larger bench. According to CJI Chandrachud, the two-judge bench's decision to request a larger bench review was in line with the exceptions outlined in the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Vs State of Maharashtra (2005). This case permits lower-strength benches to make larger bench referrals when there are substantial doubts about an existing ruling's correctness.

Asserting that as the "master of the roster," the CJI said that he retained the discretion to assign cases to benches of varying sizes, remarking that "judicial discipline and propriety dictate that benches of lower strength must adhere to such decisions" and that "the exceptions... must remain exceptions and not transmogrify into the rule". By affirming this discretionary power, CJI Chandrachud dismissed the Union's objection to the referral order and asserted that a review of Azeez Basha's ruling was warranted, given the importance of the issues surrounding AMU's minority status.

In sharp contrast, Justices Kant, Datta and Sharma raised substantive concerns about the manner in which the two-judge bench had referred to the Azeez Basha case. Their dissent centered on principles of judicial hierarchy, the role of stare decisis and the sanctity of the CJI's administrative role.