SC paves way for AMU to be declared minority institution
The Supreme Court on Friday paved the way for declaring the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) a minority institution as it overruled its 1967 verdict in the S Azeez Basha case that said the AMU was not a minority institution.
By 4:3 majority, a seven-judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said the 1967 verdict was wrong in holding that an educational institution can claim ‘minority’ status only if it’s ‘established’ and ‘administered’ by a minority community.
However, it said, “Religious or linguistic minorities must prove that they established the educational institution for the community to be a minority educational institution for the purposes of Article 30(1).”
“The test to be adopted by the court is whether the administrative set up of the educational institution affirms the minority character of the institution. If the administrative structure of the educational institution does not reflect its minority character or when it does not elucidate that the educational institution was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority, it may be reasonably inferred that the purpose was not to establish an educational institution for the benefit of the minority community,” the CJI said, in his majority verdict.
The top court ruled that Article 30 of the Constitution—which confers fundamental right on religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions—applied even to institutions established by minorities before the Constitution came into force.
“Article 30 shall stand diluted if it applies only to institutes which have been established after the Constitution came into force,” the CJI said.
The majority verdict was delivered by CJI DY Chandrachud (for himself, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra) while Justice Surya Kant partially dissented; and Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma delivered separate dissenting verdicts. Justice Kant agreed with the majority that Azeez Basha ruling needed to be modified and clarified to a certain extent.
After laying down the broad guidelines for deciding minority status of an educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution, the majority directed that the specific case on the minority status of the AMU be placed before the CJI for being placed before an appropriate Bench for factual determination.
The question with regard to the minority status of the AMU must be decided on the basis of the tests laid down in the present case, the majority said.
The verdict sets a judicial precedent for a similar legal battle over the status for the Jamia Millia Islamia University, which was declared a minority institution during the UPA government in 2011. In a minority institution, SCs, STs and OBCs do not get reservation in admission.
In the S Azeez Basha case, the top court had declared that the AMU was not a minority institution.
“The view taken in Azeez Basha that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled,” the majority verdict said, adding an institution will not lose its minority status merely because it was created by a statute and that the court must examine who was the “brain” behind establishing it.
“If that enquiry is pointing towards the minority community, then the institution can claim minority status as per Article 30,” the CJI said, pronouncing the majority verdict on his last working day.
Maintaining that the words ‘incorporation’ and ‘establishment’ can’t be used interchangeably, the majority ruled that merely because the AMU was incorporated by an imperial legislation would not mean that it was not ‘established’ by a minority.
“It can’t be argued that the university was established by Parliament merely because the statute says it was passed to establish the university. Such a formalistic reading will defeat the objectives of Article 30. Formalism must give way to actuality,” the CJI held.
“The incorporation of the University would not ipso facto lead to surrendering of the minority character of the institution. The circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university must be viewed to identify if the minority character of the institution was surrendered upon the conversion. The Court may on a holistic reading of the statutory provisions relating to the administrative set-up of the educational institution deduce if the minority character or the purpose of establishment was relinquished upon incorporation,” it noted.
An institution will not cease to be a minority institute merely because the government regulates it by bringing in a law, the CJI said, adding the government can regulate minority educational institutions as long as it does not infringe the minority character of such institutes.
“We have held that to be a minority institution, it only had to be established by the minority and not necessarily be administered by the minority members. Minority institutions may wish to emphasise secular education and for that minority members are not needed in administration,” the CJI said.
Timeline of AMU Minority Status Controversy
1857: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan establishes Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College.
1920: AMU Act enacted dissolving Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College and incorporating it as a central university.
1951: Parliament passes AMU (Amendment) Act; compulsory instruction in Muslim theology done away with. Membership of the AMU Court opened to non-Muslims.
1966: AMU Act further amended. Amendment challenged before SC by S Azeez Basha.
1967: SC dismisses the challenge by holding that AMU was not a minority institution as it was established by an Act of Parliament and it had not been set up by Muslims.
1972: AMU Act amended again; academic and executive councils made more democratic, number of Visitor’s nominees reduced.
1981: Yet another amendment to AMU Act. AMU allowed “to promote; especially the educational and cultural advancement of Muslims in India". It also allowed AMU to get back its minority tag by attempting to remove the basis of the 1967 SC verdict.
2004: AMU reserves 50% seats in PG medical courses for Muslims.
2005-06: Allahabad HC declares reservation for Muslims was unconstitutional on the basis of SC decision in Azeez Basha case.
2006: UPA government and AMU file separate appeals against Allahabad HC verdict. They contended the 1981 amendment gave AMU aminority status and allowed it to give reservation to Muslims.
2016: NDA decides to withdraw appeal against Allahabad HC verdict. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi tells SC AMU is not a minority institution.
Feb 12, 2019: SC refers the issue to a seven-judge Constitution Bench
Feb 1, 2024: A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud reserves verdict
Nov 8, 2024: SC paves way for AMU to be declared minority institution. By a 4:3 majority, overrules its 1967 five-judge Constitution Bench verdict in S Azeez Basha case that had said AMU wasn’t a minority institution
