Supreme Court overrules 1967 verdict by 4:3 majority, paves way for AMU to get minority status
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 could claim “minority” status only if it was “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 Azeez Basha case, the top court had declared that the AMU was not a minority institution. “The view taken in the Azeez Basha case 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 would 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.
An institution would not cease to be a minority institute merely because the government regulated it by bringing in a law, the CJI said, adding the government could regulate minority educational institutions as long as it did 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.
Azeez Basha order reversed
1857: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan establishes Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College
1920: AMU Act enacted dissolving Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College and incorporating it as a central university
1951: Parl clears amendment to Act; compulsory instruction in Muslim theology stopped; AMU Court opens to non-Muslims
1966: Another amendment, but challenged in SC by Azeez Basha
1967: SC quashes challenge, says AMU not a minority institute as it was established by Act of Parl, and not set up by Muslims
2004: AMU reserves 50% seats in PG medical courses for Muslims
2005-06: Allahabad HC junks reservation, cites 1967 verdict
2006: UPA govt, AMU file separate pleas against HC verdict, contend 1981 amendment allows AMU minority status and right to reserve seats
2016: NDA govt withdraws appeal against HC verdict, contends AMU not a minority institution
Feb 12, 2019: SC refers case to a seven-judge Bench
Feb 1, 2024: CJI Chandrachud-led Bench reserves verdict
Nov 8: SC quashes 1967 order
