Dhawan briefly indicates his broad arguments on the issue of Azeez Basha - 1. Basha says universities can be a minority; 2. Basha recognises the antecedents and role that AMU had in building this institution and it is said it is clearly Muslim, 3; it ignores completely the purposes of the act

Dhawan : In all universities the rector, the chancellor has advisory power and that will not interfere with the minority status. My next point is that A Basha ignores the alternative meanings to "Establish" and misunderstands the importance of "Recognition". these are the broad arguments as A Basha gives a very narrow view of Article 30

Dhawan takes the bench to the Antecedent History of the AMU.

Dhawan : this is the antecedent history and one should recognise this. But the court says I am sorry the 1920 Act will by the establishment and that's the end of it. then the preamble says - it is expedient to establish and incorporate a teaching and residential Muslim university and to dissolve the societies known as MAO. Now this is important - the continuity was established from the pre1920 to 1920 Act.