The Supreme Court judgement, which overruled the 1967 verdict that had held that Aligarh Muslim University cannot be considered a minority institution, has come at a time, when the Muslims across the nation were feeling insecure and powerless in more than one way.
The architects of our Constitution had perhaps predicted the vulnerability of the religious and linguistic minorities to establish and run educational institutions in post-Independence era, and rightly provided the protective mechanism under Article 30(1).
Hopefully the spirits of Muslims will be rejuvenated by the historic verdict of the apex court on AMU, and they make giant strides to acquire modern education by establishing more and more schools and colleges as envisioned by the founder of AMU Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.
Syed Sultan Mohiddin
Kadapa (Andhra Pradesh)
SC Judgement on Property Rights Welcome
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on UP’s bulldozer action, saying that ‘you can’t comewith bulldozer and demolish the constructions overnight’.The SC directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to compensate a man, whose house was “illegally” razedin 2019 for road widening, with Rs.25 lakhs. While passing the interim order, theapex court also issued directions to all states and Union Territories on the procedure to be followed during road widening and removal of encroachments.
A bench comprising Chief Justice ofIndia D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B.Pardiwalaand Manoj Misra told the council representing the UP government:“You can’t come with bulldozers and demolish constructions overnight. You don’t give the family time tovacate. What about the household articles inside thehouse?”
While hearing the matter of the petitioner, represented by senior advocate Sidharth Bhatnagar and Shubham Kulshrestha, thetop court remarked. “It is clear that the demolition was completely high-handed without the authority of law.” The top court directed the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into the matter pertaining to a house in Maharajganj district and takesuitable action.The inquiry would include the roles of theofficers and contractors whoperhaps were responsible for the illegal demolition. This ruling upholding property rights of Indian citizens is welcome.
Chowdhry Nisar Ahmed
Noorullah pet, Ambur (T.N.)
SC Asks Delhi HC to Hear GulfishaFatima’s Bail Plea
The Supreme Court on November 11 refused to entertain a bail plea filed by Gulfisha Fatima, one of the accused in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case. However, a Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma asked the Delhi High Court to hear Fatima’s pending bail plea on the next date of hearing unless there are extraordinary circumstances warranting adjournment of the matter.
The same Bench had recently dismissed a similar petition by another accused, Sharjeel Imam, and had asked the Delhi High Court to consider Imam’s request to expeditiously decide his long-pending bail plea. Also, at least two accused in Delhi riots cases had withdrawn their bail pleas before the Bench. These include former JNU student Umar Khalid and one Salim Malik.
Let us hope the Delhi High Court will expedite the hearing of the cases of these accused.
Ainul Hasan
New Delhi
SC Says No Religion Encourages Pollution
Hearing a case on Delhi’s yearly air quality crisis, the Supreme Court on November 11told Delhi Police to take “immediate action” to stop the sale and bursting of firecrackers in the city – an annual activity that defies an existing ban – even days after Diwali, observing sharply that “no religion encourages pollution”.
“No religion encourages any activity which creates pollution. If firecrackers are burst in this fashion… it also affects fundamental right to health of the citizens,”saida bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih. This is a welcome observation of the apex court.
Asrar Kareem
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh