tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246951252024-03-23T19:42:49.605+05:30Legal World and Childhood DreamsArticle, speeches by Yatindra Singh Chairman of the TrustKrishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.comBlogger22013tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24695125.post-53549998472972960052024-03-22T17:35:00.009+05:302024-03-22T17:48:09.316+05:30AMU Case - Sixth & seven (a)th Point<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Sir_Syed1.jpg/220px-Sir_Syed1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="220" height="336" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Sir_Syed1.jpg/220px-Sir_Syed1.jpg" width="220" /></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;">In 1981, amendments were made in the Aligarh Muslim University Act broadly providing the University to mean the educational institution of their choice established by Muslims. This post explains that this amendment is arbitrary and ultra-vires the Constitution.</span><p></p><p style="text-align: right;">Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University - Picture Courtesy Wikipedia</p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND MUSLIM RESERVATION</span></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 13.2px;"><a name="more"></a></span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><p style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-muslim-reservation-introduction.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Introduction</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/points-involved-in-case.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Points Involved in the Case</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-first-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Institution Should Be Established and Administered</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-second-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">AMU Established by the Principal Act</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-third-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">AMU Not Administered by Minority</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/03/amu-case-fourth-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Legislature Can Not Reverse Decision</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/03/amu-case-fifth-point.html">Article 30 - Electoral And Not Numerical Minority</a>।</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">। 1981 Amendments Are Arbitrary।। </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-post-is-about-andre-weils.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Bourbaki & Zero</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif">।।</span></span></p></div><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the Basha case, it was held that AMU was established by the Principal Act (kindly see <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-second-point.html">2nd submission</a>). This finding cannot be reversed unless the basis is changed. This can only happen if the Status quo ante or the way things were before the Principal Act come into existence. In other words, the Principal Act is repealed and the administration as well as properties are reverted back to the MAO. This has not happened. </span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Declaration in section 2(l)—broadly providing the University to mean the educational institution of their choice established by Muslims is '<i>pure fiction</i>' and as Holmes J. in Haddock vs. Haddock {201 (1906) US 562, 630} observed, </span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Fiction always is a poor ground for changing substantial rights.” </span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is dissenting opinion but words of wisdom.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There is no change in the basis for the decision in the Basha case. The legislature cannot reverse it (kindly refer to answer of the <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/03/amu-case-fourth-point.html">fourth submission</a>). Section 2(l) providing artificial definition to the word ‘University’ is arbitrary. An arbitrary statutory provision violates Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. It is void. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ol><li><span style="font-size: large;">2019 (3) SCC 39 Joseph Shine Vs Union of India (Decriminalising adultery)</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">2018 (10) SCC 1 Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India (Decriminalising Homosexuality)</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">2018 (6) SCC 1 (30, 35, 36 & 39) Lok Prahari Vs State of UP</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">2017 (9) SCC 1 Shayara Bano Vs Union of India (Triple Talaq)</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">2011(8) SCC 4344 State of TN Vs Syam Sunder </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">2006 (3) SCC 434 Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Vs Bombay Environmental Group</span></li></ol><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">#AMU #AligarhMuslimUniversity #MuslimReservation #Arbitrary</span></p>Krishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24695125.post-26211461106907683662024-03-14T13:55:00.002+05:302024-03-16T13:26:57.057+05:30AMU Case - Fifth Point<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This post explains that the word 'minority' in Article 30 of the Constitution envisages electoral minority and not numerical minority.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiVwX8bYxh65GwPPeEjBPvSMptkM51QzjIaSdI-mF9xRxQESRxXEPc0_RFRY7eYIPi6DaDQX8VD5iSDmPHAfTgR4P0hWukprnX_k5Wr-0jS4hYO-q7T2pjVbQvFsIUEoYf6dGX8ivrcOMv7p4IItnFYHlbfIKSGJMY0Pd1ptb1HQZnbOSXzmE/s3000/Aqua%204G+_20150826_175956-EFFECTS.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1687" data-original-width="3000" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiVwX8bYxh65GwPPeEjBPvSMptkM51QzjIaSdI-mF9xRxQESRxXEPc0_RFRY7eYIPi6DaDQX8VD5iSDmPHAfTgR4P0hWukprnX_k5Wr-0jS4hYO-q7T2pjVbQvFsIUEoYf6dGX8ivrcOMv7p4IItnFYHlbfIKSGJMY0Pd1ptb1HQZnbOSXzmE/w400-h225/Aqua%204G+_20150826_175956-EFFECTS.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND MUSLIM RESERVATION</span></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 13.2px;"><a name="more"></a></span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><p style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-muslim-reservation-introduction.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Introduction</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/points-involved-in-case.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Points Involved in the Case</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-first-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Institution Should Be Established and Administered</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-second-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">AMU Established by the Principal Act</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-third-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">AMU Not Administered by Minority</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/03/amu-case-fourth-point.html">Legislature Can Not Reverse Decision</a>।। Article 30 - Electoral And Not Numerical Minority।</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">। </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-post-is-about-andre-weils.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Bourbaki & Zero</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif">।।</span></span></p></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: large;">Democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. Lord Acton in Essay on Freedom (1948, page 33) says, </span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">“Most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. “</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is the basic reason for giving rights to the minorities so that the majority may not trample on them. If this be the reason then the minority—not defined anywhere in the constitution—means electoral minority and not numerical minority. Though, the trend of this court is, towards numerical minority.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Muslim vote bank (but not other minority vote bank) plays important role in the elections. Their consolidation results into victory for the candidate. It (Muslim vote bank) is numerical minority but perhaps not electoral minority. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In Committee of Management Anuman Madarsa Noorul Islam v. State of UP 2007 SCC OnLine All 1043: 2007 (4) All LJ 370, a A single judge has held that Muslims are not minority in India. This part of the order has been set aside by the Division Bench in special appeal {2009 SCC OnLine All 786 State of UP v. Bahuri Alp on the ground that it was not necessary to decide it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Nevertheless, the point is there. The courts are not fully equipped to deal with such a question: a commission may be constituted to consider it. There is no proper foundation in this case. The court may mention it and leave it open to be decided in an appropriate case.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">#AMU #AligarhMuslimUniversity #MuslimReservation #Minority</span></p>Krishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24695125.post-54292607777283036442024-03-07T13:46:00.002+05:302024-03-08T11:08:24.508+05:30 AMU Case - Fourth Point<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This post explains that legislature may change a basis of a decision but cannot reverse it.</span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg/300px-Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="300" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg/300px-Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg" /></a></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND MUSLIM RESERVATION</span></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 13.2px;"><a name="more"></a></span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><p style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-muslim-reservation-introduction.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Introduction</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/points-involved-in-case.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Points Involved in the Case</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-first-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Institution Should Be Established and Administered</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-second-point.html">AMU Established by the Principal Act</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-third-point.html">AMU Not Administered by Minority</a>।। Legislature Can Not Reverse Decision।। ।</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">। </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-post-is-about-andre-weils.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Bourbaki & Zero</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif">।।</span></span></p></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In reference to this point, the case of State of TN Vs State of Kerala 2014 (12) SCC 696 (the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case) is relevant. The facts of this case are as follows:</span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There was a dispute between State of TN (Tamilnadu) and State of Kerala (Kerala) regarding height of full reservoir level (FRL) of Mullaperiyar Dam (the Dam). Kerala wanted to keep it at 132 feet whereas Tamilnadu wanted it to increase to provide irrigation to its farmers. </span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> In Mullaperiyar Environment Protection Forum Vs Union of India 2006 (3) SCC 643 (the Mullaperiyar-Forum Case), the Supreme Court (SC) permitted the water level to be raised to 142 feet and after strengthening the work to the satisfaction of Central Water commission to (CWC); independent expert to the level of 152 feet (para 12). </span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">After the Mullaperiyar-Forum Case was decided, Kerala enacted the Kerala Irrigation and water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 (the 2006 Amendment) restricting the height of full reservoir level (FRL) of the Dam to 136 feet (para 14, 15). The question in the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case was whether the 2006 amendment was valid. </span></li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">After analysing the decisions of the Indian and foreign Courts the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case, the Constitutional bench summed up the Law as to when a legislation can nullify a Judgement of the competent Court in para 126 to 126.7. The relevant part is as follows: </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“126.5. The doctrine of separation of powers applies to the final judgments of the courts. The legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can, however, pass an amending Act to remedy the defects pointed out by a court of law or on coming to know of it aliunde. In other words, a court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">126.6. If the legislature has the power over the subject-matter and competence to make a validating law, it can at any time make such a validating law and make it retrospective. The validity of a validating law, therefore, depends upon whether the legislature possesses the competence which it claims over the subject-matter and whether in making the validation law it removes the defect which the courts had found in the existing law.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In paras 149 to 151 155 and 157 of the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case, the Court observed that in Mullaperiyar-Forum Case, it was recorded a finding of fact that height could be increased to 142 Feet and after strengthening it to 152 feet. This could not be set at naught by the legislature. It could only be altered by the Court on fresh facts regarding safety being brought to the knowledge of the court. The Court (para 228) restrained Kerala from interfering with Tamilnadu from increasing the level to 142 feet. In paragraph 157 the court observes:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The question whether or not the legislature has usurped the judicial power or enacted a law in breach of separation of powers principle would depend on facts of each case after considering the real effect of law on a judgment or a judicial proceeding. One of the tests for determining whether a judgment is nullified is to see whether the law and the judgment are inconsistent and irreconcilable so that both cannot stand together. In what we have already discussed above, it is abundantly clear that on the one hand there is a finding of fact determined by this Court on hearing the parties on the basis of the evidence/materials placed on record in the judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum [Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643] and on the other in the 2006 (Amendment) Act, the Kerala Legislature has declared the Dam being an endangered one and fixed the water level in the Dam at 136 ft. If the judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643 and the 2006 (Amendment) Act are placed side by side in so far as safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam for raising the water level from 136 ft to 142 ft is concerned, it is obvious that the judgment of this Court and the law enacted by the Kerala State Legislature cannot stand together and they are irreconcilable and inconsistent. The impugned law is a classic case of nullification of a judgment simpliciter, as in the judgment of this Court the question of the safety of the Dam was determined on the basis of materials placed before it and not on the interpretation of any existing law and there was no occasion for the legislature to amend the law by altering the basis on which the judgment was founded. When the impugned law is not a validation law, there is no question of the legislature removing the defect, as the Court has not found any vice in the existing law and declared such law to be bad.”</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The aforesaid Case was followed by another constitution bench decision of this Court In re Punjab Termination Agreement Act 2004 2017 (1) SCC 121. The Court (para 39) held:</span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Looking at the afore-stated legal position, in our opinion, the State of Punjab had exceeded its legislative power in proceeding to nullify the decree of this Court and therefore, the Punjab Act cannot be said to be a validly enacted legislation, as held by this Court in terms of the afore stated judgments.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In concurring Judgement, it was observed (para 48): </span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“From the above mentioned set-up under our Constitution, there is no difficulty in concluding that no Government, whether Central or State, can usurp the power of adjudicating disputes vested in the judiciary including High Courts and the Supreme Court. Further, as a corollary, the judgments and decrees which are the end product of exercise of judicial power cannot be set at naught by the process of legislative declaration in respect of facts and circumstances. As explained already in the main judgment, the situation is somewhat different when a competent legislature engages itself in the exercise of validating a law declared defective or invalid for reasons which are curable.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Case in hand is similar. In the Basha Case, a constitutional bench recorded a finding of fact that the university was not established by the minority (para 22, 23 25, 26). This was not on the interpretation of any provision of the Act but on the facts and circumstances of the case that the University came into existence by legislation. This is clear from the the following observations:</span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“23. It is true, as is clear from the 1920 Act, that the nucleus of the Aligarh University was the M.A.O. College, which was till then a teaching institution under the Allahabad University. The conversion of that college (if we may use that expression) into a university was however not by the Muslim minority; it took place by virtue of the 1920 Act which was passed by the Central legislature. There was no Aligarh University existing till the 1920 Act was passed. It was brought into being by the 1920 Act and must therefore be held to have been established by the Central Legislature which by passing the 1920 Act incorporated it. The fact that it was based on the M.A.O. College, would make no difference to the question as to who established the Aligarh University. The answer to our mind as to who established the Aligarh University is clear and that is that it was the Central Legislature by enacting the 1920 Act that established the said University. As we have said already, the Muslim minority could not establish a university whose degrees were bound to be recognised by Government as provided by Section 6 of 1920 Act: that one circumstance along with the fact that without the 1920 Act the University in the form that it had, could not come into existence shows clearly that the Aligarh University when it came into existence in 1920 was established by the Central Legislature by the 1920 Act. It may be that the 1920 Act was passed as a result of the efforts of the Muslim minority. But that does not mean that the Aligarh University when it came into being under the 1920 Act was established by the Muslim minority.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is finding on the circumstances and the fact that the University came into existence by an enactment. There is no change on this account. The Parliament cannot set at naught a valid decision of this court. The amendments to the preamble and section 2(l) of the Act are invalid.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">#AMU #AligarhMuslimUniversity #MuslimReservation #Legislature</span></p>Krishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.com0