No impropriety or irregularity: Delhi HC dismisses PIL challenging Maulana Azad Education Foundation’s dissolution

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the Body’s decision to dissolve the foundation is a “well considered decision” taken in terms of the “authority vested in it”, under MAEF’s byelaws and as per the Societies Registration Act provisions.

“This court is not impressed by various submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners with respect to dissolution of MAEF not being in conformity with the Act, 1860, or with regard to transfer of its funds… This court finds no impropriety or irregularity in the process adopted by the said General Body in arriving at the said decision. In any event, this court, in public interest jurisdiction (unlike civil original jurisdiction), is not supposed to examine and give a finding with respect to each and every procedural or statutory violation… The court has to look at the ‘big picture’ and ensure that the cause of the minorities, in particular, the minority girl students, as canvassed by the petitioners, is not prejudiced,” underscored the bench.

According to the minutes of the 89th General Body meeting of MAEF, held on March 7, the members had “unanimously agreed” that the “mismanagement characterised by the non-utilisation and subsequent accumulation of funds substantially undermines the welfare of the minority communities, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty”.

The bench, thereafter, noted that the foundation was established in 1989 with the primary objective of advancing education among ‘Educationally Backward Minorities’ through various initiatives such as scholarship and skill development programmes for the minority youth. It further noted that in 2006, the Ministry was established with the aim to “specially address the needs of minority communities through diverse schemes and programmes”.

Taking note of programmes introduced by the Ministry and comparing them with MAEF programmes, the bench said that the “various initiatives, being carried out by MAEF to advance education amongst the educationally backward minorities, including the scholarship programmes, have been integrated into comparable programmes and initiatives” of the Ministry.

“Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest of minority communities, for their educational and welfare development, is being hampered in any manner on account of the MAEF dissolution,” underscored the bench.

The bench also rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Ministry’s schemes do not have an object similar to those of the MAEF. Dismissing the petition, it said that the petition has “no merit”, and that it is not inclined to interfere in the decision