INTRODUCTION
The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was established in the year 1920 to address the educational backwardness of Muslims of India and Indians in general[1] has recently been the centre of debates regarding its status as a minority institution under Article 30[2] under the Indian Constitution[3]. The recent verdict of the Supreme Court on the minority status of AMU offers an important lens through which to examine a balance between minority rights provided under Article 30[4] and state control over educational institutions. This judgment delves into the interpretation of Article 30 as well as examines precedents to understand the minority status of AMU. Through this historical judgment, the Supreme Court reshaped the future of educational autonomy given to minorities in the country. A seven-judge bench led by DY Chandrachud delivered a verdict through a 4:3 majority by the Supreme Court, the ruling overturned the judgment of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India[5]. Thus, marking a new point for interpreting Article 30 of the Indian Constitution and also establishing a landmark judgement to protect minority rights.
A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF AMU’s MINORITY STATUS
The roots of Aligarh Muslim University can be traced back to the year 1875 when Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) was established by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. The MAO College later became Aligarh Muslim University by the Aligarh Muslim University Act[6] of 1920.
The Institution was given minority status after the amendment of the AMU Act in 1951. The parliament amended section 8 [7]of the AMU Act of 1920, which opened the university to non-Muslim personnel. Another key amendment was made in the year 1965, which deleted
sections 23(2)[8] and 23 (3) [9]of the AMU Act, 1920 which resulted in the restructuring of AMU’s administration by reducing the powers of AMU’s court and providing powers to the executive council for governing the matters.
The AMU challenged the 1965 amendment in Azeez Basha v. Union of India[10], 1967 by filing a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 30[11] of the Indian constitution[12] which guarantees the rights of minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions. The main contentions of the petitioners were that the 1965 amendment infringed on their rights to administer the university as per their choice. [13]However, the Supreme Court held that the University was not a minority institution and hence is not protected under Article 30 [14]of the Indian constitution[15]. The Supreme Court emphasized the fact that for AMU to be a minority institution it had to fulfill both requirements of being established and administered by the minority. However, the AMU was established by an act of parliament and not solely by the Muslim community thus failing to meet the criteria under article 30.
However, in the year 1981, the parliament amended the AMU Act, granting it the status of a minority institution. However, in January 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision of the 1981 law which accorded the university minority status[16].
This case was later referred to a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the year 2019, however looking at the complexities of the issue the bench further referred the case to a 7-judge bench.
JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN 2024 – AN ANALYSIS
The seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment by laying down a test for determining whether the institution in question can be categorized as a minority institution. Some of the key points from the judgment are –
- The bench emphasized the fact that to qualify as a minority institution, the institution in question must be established and administered by a minority community as per Article 30(1)[17] of the Indian Constitution[18]. It further said that merely establishing an institution with no intent to administer it will not qualify as a minority institution. Moreover, it was said by the bench that to qualify as a minority institution it is important to determine the purpose and intention for establishing the institution as well as minority’s involvement with the institution is also an important criterion to determine the institution’s minority status. Hence both the establishment and administration criteria should be fulfilled together.
- Another key aspect clarified by the bench was that institutions established before the constitution started as well as after it are equally protected by Article 30[19] of the constitution as limiting it to the institutions that were established after the constitution came into being will weaken the purpose of the article leading to the exploitation of the minorities.
- Another aspect emphasized by the court was that giving recognition to a minority institution through government legislation cannot take away its minority status, moreover, the intent and role of the minority should be focused on. Thus, the founding members of the institutions (minority) have the right to manage the institution.
- The court further focused on the fact that to qualify as a minority institution it is not necessary to display religious symbols rather the main motive should be to serve the community by providing education (not necessarily religious education).
- To determine who established the minority institution, the courts must focus on the origin of the institution, which includes the idea behind the creation of the institution, like for benefitting the minority communities or identifying the person or a group who established it, etc. Moreover, the purpose of establishing the institution is also an important factor, and merely taking aid from the state after the institution was established does not erase its minority status.
- Another point emphasized by the bench is that the members of the minority community do not have to undertake the administration of the minority institution however, its purpose of benefitting the minority community should remain the same.
- One of the significant aspects of this judgment was the overruling of Azeez Basha v. Union of India[20] by the Supreme Court as, according to it, AMU cannot be classified as a minority institution as it was established by government legislation, which was overruled in this judgment.
CONCLUSION
Even though the Supreme Court did not address the question of the minority status of the AMU, this judgment overturned a precedent (Azeez Basha v. Union of India ) and gave a flagship test to determine the minority status of an institution, making it of significant importance for the upcoming issues related to the minority status of the institutions. The Supreme Court noted that the institution’s purpose and origin should be taken into consideration when deciding whether the institution is of a minority nature or not. Additionally, it was also held by the court that for an institution to be classified as a minority institution, it doesn’t need to benefit any minority community. Further, it was also held that the institution doesn’t need to be administered by the minority community members to be classified as a minority institution. By overturning the idea of the rigid interpretation of Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court not only came to the forefront to protect the rights of the minority institutions in the country but also established an important precedent for future cases to strengthen the idea of supporting diversity in the country.
Author(s) Name: Shreya Maheshwari (O.P Jindal Global University)
References:
[1] ABDULRAHIM P. VIJAPUR, “ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY @100 YEARS: ACHIEVEMENTS, PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES” (2020) 15, Universitas<https://www.academia.edu/60823544/ALIGARH_MUSLIM_UNIVERSITY_at_100_YEARS_ACHIEVEMENTS_PROBLEMS_AND_CHALLENGES>accessed 24 January 2025
[2] The Constitution of India, art 14
[3] The Constitution of India,1950
[4] The Constitution of India, art 14
[5] (1968) SCR (1) 833
[6] Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920
[7] THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ACT 1920, s 8.
[8] THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ACT 1920, s 23(2).
[9] THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ACT 1920, s 23(3).
[10] (1968) SCR (1) 833
[11] The Constitution of India, art 30
[12] The Constitution of India,1950
[13] Shah Rukh Ahmad, “THE MINORITY STATUS OF ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY” (2017)1, ILI Law Review <https://ili.ac.in/pdf/paper717.pdf> accessed 21 January 2025
[14] The Constitution of India, art 30
[15] The Constitution of India, 1950
[16] Krishnadas Rajgopal, “Supreme Court overrules 1967 verdict against Aligarh Muslim University’s minority tag” The Hindu (New Delhi,)<https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aligarh-muslim-university-is-minority-institution-supreme-court/article68844050.ece> accessed 9 November 2024
[17] The Constitution of India, art 30(1)
[18] The Constitution of India, 1950
[19] The Constitution of India, art 30
[20] (1968) SCR (1) 833
