REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR Appellant

V/S

MALAY SHUKLA, DR.RAMJI SHUKLA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PRATT V. COOK SON AND COMPANY (SANTPAUL) LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RIGHT REV. BISHOP S.K. PATRO V. STATE OF BIHAR IS RELEVANT [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD ST. XAVIER'S COLLEGE SOCIETY V. STATE OF GUJRAT [REFERRED TO]
MT. ATRIA BEGUM AND ANR. V. UNITED PROVINCES [REFERRED TO]
PATEL GORDHANDAS HARGOVINDAS VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
S AZEEZ BASHA MOHAMMAD YASEEN NURI ZULFIQUARULLA DR M TAJUDDIN QURASHI MOHD IDRIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. VERY REV MOTHER PROVINCIAL [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD ST XAVIERS COLLEGE SOCIETY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
GANDHI FAIZ E AM COLLEGE SHAHJAHANPUR VS. UNIVERSITY OF AGRA [REFERRED TO]
I N SAKSENA R D DOONGAJI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN PATHAK RAM PARKASH MANCHANDA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT MATHURADAS MOHAN LAL KEDIA VS. RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL SONI:SH S D MUNSHAW [REFERRED TO]
UJAGAR PRINTS II KWALITY SILK MILLS CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HIRIA DEVI VS. RAMESHWAR SAO S O PARSADI SAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. GOPAL CHANDRA RATH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. AROORAN SUGARS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. MADHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BAKHTAWAR TRUST VS. M D NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER SINGH HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MRIDUL DHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short basic issue in all these appeals is whether the Aligarh Muslim University is a minority Institution. The point arises because suddenly some eighty five years after incorporation, they chose for the first time to reserve a Muslim quota, by way of a 50% reservation of post-graduate course seats meant for qualified MBBS doctors. The judgment under appeal before us has been delivered by an Hon'ble Single Judge of our Court on the 4th of October, 2005. Both sides, to be more accurate, all parties, felt aggrieved, and came up in appeal. The appeals will all be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) On the one side, who spoke first were, the Aligarh Muslim University, represented by Mr. S.S. Ray, leading Dr. Dhawan, the Union of India and the learned Attorney General on whose behalf Mr. Gopal Subramaniam addressed us, two individuals one of whom is a member of the Court of the University, which is its administrative body, the Minority Commission whose case was put forward by Mr. Ravindra Srivastava, and groups of Muslim students/represented by two learned Counsel one of whom was Mr. Ashok Khare and Anr. Mr. S.A. Shah.

(3.) On the other side were certain dissatisfied students whose case was put forward by Mr. Ravi Kant. Before we proceed any further, we make it clear that in spite of the most elaborate expertise and painstaking arguments on the part of the University and its supporters, we felt so utterly unconvinced that Mr. Ravi Kant was called upon to speak for about two hours whereas the other side had amongst themselves addressed us for some five days or so. Those hearings were substantially full day hearings.

Click here to view full judgment.

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY Vs. MALAY SHUKLA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address