Delhi High Court: The present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed seeking quashing of the Office Order dated 7-2-2024 (‘the impugned order’) issued by Respondent 1, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India, by way of which Respondent 1 accepted the proposal by the Central Waqf Council (‘CWC’) to dissolve the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (‘MAEF’). The Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ., and Mini Pushkarna, J.*, opined that the decision to dissolve MAEF was a well-considered decision, duly taken by the General Body of MAEF in terms of the authority vested in it by way of the Bye Laws of MAEF and as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘the Act’). The Court held that the decision to dissolve MAEF was duly taken by the General Body of MAEF, and it found no impropriety or irregularity in the process adopted by the General Body in arriving at the said decision.
Background
MAEF was created by CWC which was an advisory body to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, where in its 28th meeting held on 27-12-1988, CWC passed a Resolution to constitute MAEF. Thereafter, MAEF was established as a registered society under the Act on 6-7-1989. In 2006, Respondent 1 was established as a separate Ministry and was segregated from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, thereafter, which CWC got attached with Respondent 1.
In January 2024, CWC proposed closure of MAEF and sent the proposal to Respondent 1. Thus, by the impugned order, Respondent 1 communicated the approval of the competent authority for closure of MAEF, with direction that the said issue of its closure be placed before its General Body amongst other directions for transfer of funds and fixed assets of MAEF, so that the process of dissolution of MAEF was completed as per the applicable laws. Thus, against the impugned order issued by Respondent 1, the present PIL was filed. During the pendency of the present petition, the General Body of MAEF in its meeting held on 7-3-2024 resolved to dissolve MAEF, a registered Society, as per the Bye Laws of the said Society and as per the provisions of the Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the primary objective of establishing MAEF was to advance education among Educationally Backward Minorities through various initiatives, including scholarship programmes and skill development programmes for minority youth. The Court further noted that in 2006, Respondent 1 was established after being segregated from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Respondent 1 was created with an aim to specially address the needs of the minority communities through diverse schemes and programmes and Respondent 1 had introduced many welfare programmes for the educational and economic empowerment of the minority communities.
The Court took note of the various programmes implemented by Respondent 1 with the objective of providing scholarship and other training programmes to the persons from minority communities, including scholarship to young girls belonging to the minority communities and opined that Respondent 1 had introduced various programmes designed specifically to cater to the educational and skill development needs of the minority groups. Further, the various initiatives being carried out by MAEF to advance education amongst the Educationally Backward Minorities, including the scholarship programmes, had been integrated into comparable programmes and initiatives of Respondent 1. Therefore, the Court opined that the welfare programmes aimed at the minority communities were being carried out devotedly by Respondent 1. Thus, it could not be said that the interest of the minority communities in their educational and welfare development was being hampered in any manner on account of the dissolution of MAEF.
The Court opined that the decision to dissolve MAEF was a well-considered decision, duly taken by the General Body of MAEF in terms of the authority vested in it by way of the Bye Laws of MAEF and as per the provisions of the Act. The Court held that the decision to dissolve MAEF was duly taken by the General Body of MAEF, and it found no impropriety or irregularity in the process adopted by the General Body in arriving at the said decision.
The Court opined that in public interest jurisdiction, the Court had to look at the “big picture” and ensure that the cause of the minorities, in particular, the minority girl students, as canvassed by petitioners, was not prejudiced. The Court rejected the contention of petitioners that the schemes of Respondent 1 did not have similar objects to that of MAEF.
The Court further opined that the scope of judicial review of the policy decisions taken by the Government was very limited and once a policy was formulated by the Government and a decision was taken thereto, it was not for this Court to interfere in the said policy, only on the ground that a better policy could have been evolved.
The Court relied on Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 269; Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737; Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2015) 9 SCC 657; and State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 258 and held that it found no merit in the present petition and was not inclined to interfere in the decision taken by respondents. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Syeda Saiyidain Hameda v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2689, decided on 16-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Anand Grover, Senior Advocate; Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ibad Mushtaq, Rohin Bhatt, Akanksha Rai, Gurneet Kaur, Syed Ashhar, Akram Pasha, Advocates
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, ASG; Vineet Dhanda, CGSC; Amit Acharya, GP; Amit Gupta, Vinay Yadav, Saurabh Tripathi, Vikramaditya Singh, Gurleen Kaur, Archit Aggarwal, Hashmat Nabi, Arham Raza, Tousif Ahmad, Anurag Ojha, Subham Kumar, Advocates; Mompi Dey, Legal Consultant, Ministry of Minority Affairs
