Supreme Court overrules 1967 verdict, refrains from deciding whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution

CJI Chandrachud said there were four separate opinions, including three dissenting verdicts

A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in a majority judgment of 4:3 ratio, overruled a 1967 Constitution Bench decision which held that a minority community cannot claim to have established an educational institution if it was created by a statute.

The majority judgment authored by the Chief Justice was based on petitions seeking minority status to the Aligarh Muslim University.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said an institution established by a minority community is indeed a minority educational institution. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma were in the minority.

Also read: Tracing the roots of Aligarh and its famous university, often hailed as a mini-India

A five-judge Bench, in S. Azeez Basha versus Union of India case in 1967, had held that AMU was a central university and cannot be considered a minority institution. The five-judge Bench had held that the varsity was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority, and cannot claim protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Article 30(1) upholds the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions.

“Azeez Basha’s conclusion, that an educational institution is not established by a minority community if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled,” Chief Justice Chandrachud held.

The minority status of the AMU, established in 1875, was restored by the Parliament through the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981. In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court had however struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which the university was accorded the minority status. The issue was referred to a seven-judge Bench in 2019.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that minority institutions are established with the goal to preserve the cultural fabric of the community. The state regulation of minority institutions is permissible, but it must not infringe on the minority character of the institution.

Also read: Government backs verdict denying AMU minority status

Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that it was not necessary that an educational institution should have been established for the purpose of the minority community alone. It must have been only “predominantly” for the benefit of the community. The fact whether an institution was established for the purpose of preserving the cultural fabric of the particular community had to be discerned from primary sources of information like the documents of the formation of the university, letters, speeches, assets involved to establish the institution, the steps taken to implement the idea at the time of its creation, etc.

The majority judgment said an institution did not lose its minority character merely because the administration was no longer vested with the community.

The very purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution is to grant special rights on the administration of a minority institution as a consequence of its establishment by a minority community. The consequence cannot be converted into a pre-condition, Chief Justice Chandrachud reasoned.

“The right to administer is guaranteed to minority education institutions to enable them to preserve sufficient autonomy to model the institutions according to the educational values which the community wishes to emphasise. It is not necessary that the purpose can only be implemented if persons belonging to the community helm the administrative affairs… This is so particularly if the minority institution may wish to emphasise on secular education,” Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote.

The court returned the case to the Regular Bench to examine the question of minority status of AMU on the basis of the seven-judge Bench decission on Friday (November, 8, 2024).

In its written submissions during the hearing, the Centre had contended that AMU cannot be considered a minority institution given its “national character”. The government had said AMU was not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination. It said a university declared as an institution of national importance cannot be a minority institution.

The university, on the other hand, had contended that it was established by the Muslim community for educating and empowering the community.

Published - November 08, 2024 11:26 am IST