Minority institutions cannot flourish at the expense of majority institutions and the Supreme Court 's approach in this regard has been problematic, Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan said on Tuesday..She opined that while fostering minority institutions is important, it cannot be at the expense of majority institutions.."The way minority institutions have been treated by the Supreme court is problematic because while you want the minority institutions to flourish it cannot be at the cost of majority institutions and it cannot become like a punishment ... Which makes people compete for minorities status and this is nothing but perversion," she said..Divas was delivering a lecture on "Decolonisation: Supreme Court Judgments and the Indian Constitution" at the Adhivakta Parishad's Supreme Court unit..On November 8 this year, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court had held by a 4:3 majority that the minority status of an educational institute will not cease merely because the parliament enacts a law to regulate/ govern such institutes or that the institute is being administered by non-minority members..A Bench of then Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma overruled the 1968 judgment in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India in which it was held that minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had ceased because of parliamentary a law regulating the university..The Senior advocate also spoke extensively on the impact of colonial influence on Indian legal framework. She criticised the use of "modesty" in criminal law, describing it as a Victorian-era concept that perpetuates misogyny rigid gender roles, and patriarchy."This modesty concept is a Victorian era concept and it does a great disservice to woman when you talk about women in those terms and it is an issue of consent or no consent. Modesty is interpreted as chastity and purity by SC and it is portrayed as a timid, submissive, demure nature in comparison to man who is regarded as macho, strong, tough, outspoken which furthers societal expectations that she is to be protected and man protects. This perpetuates gender roles, misogyny, patriarchy and I think it is high time we do away with it. British do not have it and we should not have it," she said..On the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Divan emphasized its original intent to eradicate gender bias in personal laws, calling it a "feminist" measure. However, she expressed disappointment at its delayed implementation, attributing it to a status quoist mindset.
