Supreme Court Calls for Reconstitution of MAEF General Body to Revisit Dissolution Decision

The Supreme Court on Friday recommended that the Centre reconstitute the general body of the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF) to reconsider its dissolution. The MAEF, established in 1989, focuses on advancing education among educationally backward minorities.

The suggestion came during the hearing of an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision, which supported the Centre’s move to dissolve the MAEF. The appeal criticized the composition of the MAEF’s governing body, pointing out that it predominantly consists of government officials, contrary to the requirement of including members from diverse backgrounds.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench which also includes Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, proposed an alternative approach to avoid sending the matter back to the High Court. “What we can do is ask you to reconstitute the body, and they can then make a fresh decision on whether to dissolve the foundation,” the Chief Justice suggested.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, defended the composition of the current board, asserting that the members were from various walks of life and were eligible to serve. He agreed to take the court’s suggestion under advisement and will seek further instructions.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 14, awaiting the government’s response.

At the hearingโ€™s start, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing the petitioners including Syeda Saiyidain Hameed, was informed that the resolution to dissolve the foundation was passed by a competent body. However, the petitioners argue that the foundation’s dissolution was abrupt and lacked transparency, which adversely affected the beneficiaries, particularly girls and minority students.

Also Read

Earlier in April, the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL against the dissolution, stating that the decision by the MAEF’s general body was “well considered.” The court noted no impropriety or irregularity in the decision-making process.

The Ministry of Minority Affairs had earlier directed the MAEF to initiate the closure process, citing redundancy given the existence of a dedicated ministry overseeing minority welfare schemes. This decision was based on a proposal from the Central Wakf Council, which highlighted the foundation’s dwindling activity and poor fund utilization.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles