Context:
A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict (4:3) on Friday to nullify a significant 1967 ruling concerning the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), which had previously stripped its minority designation.
However, the final determination regarding the reinstatement of minority status has been delegated to a standard three-judge bench which is yet to be formed.
Case Name: Aligarh Muslim University v/s Malay Shukla Case.
Background of the case:
S. Azeez Basha v/s Union of India, (1968)
- Supreme Court in this case held that AMU was created by an Act of Parliament i.e., the 1920 Act is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
- It was observed that the nucleus of the Aligarh University was the M.A.O. College, but the conversion of that College into a University was however not by the Muslim minority, it took place by virtue of the 1920 Act which was passed by the Central legislature.
Aligarh Muslim University Amendment Act, 1981
- To nullify the effect of Azeez Basha (supra), the Aligarh Muslim University Amendment Act, 1981 was brought into effect.
- The 1981 Act Amended the definition of the term “University’. University was amended to mean an “educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which originated as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University”.
Naresh Agarwal (Dr.) v. Union of India, 2005
- The decision of the Admission Committee of the AMU in 2005 that the total seats available for Post Graduate Medical Courses be reserved to 50 percent for the Muslim candidates was challenged.
- The Court held that AMU is not a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution, therefore, the University cannot provide any reservation in respect of the students belonging to a particular religious community.
Naresh Agarwal (Dr.) v. Union of India, 2005
- Accordingly, it was held that the decision in Azeez Basha (supra) still holds good even after the Aligarh Muslim University Amendment Act, 1981.
Issues framed by Supreme Court:
Aligarh Muslim University v/s Malay Shukla
> Issues framed by Supreme Court in this case
- Whether a University, established and governed by a statute (AMU Act , 1920), can claim minority status;
- The correctness of the judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union Of India which rejected the minority status of AMU ;
- The nature and correctness of the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to the University after the decision in Azeez Basha;
- Whether reliance placed on the Azeez Basha decision by Allahabad High Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Malay Shukla, was correct in concluding that AMU being a non-minority institution could not reserve 50% seats for Muslim candidates in Medical PG Courses
Supreme Court Judgement :
1. The Majority opinion held that an institution will not lose its minority status simply because it was established by a statute.
The Court emphasized that the critical inquiry should focus on
- Identifying who established the institution and
- Who was the “brain” behind its creation.
Note: In S. Azeez Basha v/s Union of India case, Supreme Court had held that AMU was a Central University and cannot be considered a minority institution.
If this inquiry points to the minority community, the institution can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution. For this factual determination, the Constitution Bench directed the matter to be referred to a regular bench for further examination.
2. The Majority held that Article 30 cannot be interpreted as applying only prospectively to institutions established after the commencement of the Constitution.
- The terms “incorporation” and “establishment” must not be used interchangeably.
- Merely because the AMU was incorporated through imperial legislation does not negate the fact that it was “established” by a minority community.
- The Court further held that Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions, applies not only to institutions established after the Constitution came into force but also to those established by minorities before its commencement.
3. The Court further held that Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions, applies not only to institutions established after the Constitution came into force but also to those established by minorities before its commencement.
4. 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”
5. A legislation or an executive action which discriminates against religious or linguistic minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions is
- Ultra vires Article 30(1).
- This is the antidiscrimination reading of the provision.
- A linguistic or religious minority which has established an educational institution receives the guarantee of greater autonomy. This is the ‘special rights’ reading of the provision.
6. State regulation is allowed on grounds stipulated under Art. 19(6) and Art. 26 but it must not infringe on the minority character of the institution
Criteria for grant of recognition to minority educational institutions:
>The fundamental right of linguistic and religious minorities to establish and manage educational institutions is protected under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. To protect these constitutional rights, the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act was implemented.
- The educational institution should have been established by a minority community.
- The agency managing the institution should have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
- The Managing Committee of the Society and Governing body of the institution should be wholly or substantially manned by the representatives of the respective minority community.
- The educational institution should have been running for at least two academic years in accordance with the regulations laid down by statutory authorities such as the State Government, AICTE, University, Board of Technical Education, etc.
- Merely giving a nomenclature as that of belonging to a minority community will not entitle the institutions to be recognized as a minority educational institution.
In conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recent split verdict in Aligarh Muslim University v. Malay Shukla reflects the complexities surrounding the minority status of educational institutions established by a particular community yet formalized by legislation. The majority opinion emphasized that minority status hinges on identifying the founding entity rather than solely the means of legal incorporation, underscoring that Article 30 rights apply to institutions established both before and after the Constitution’s enactment.
This decision has reframed the understanding of minority institutions under Indian law, highlighting that secular educational objectives do not negate the minority status if the founding community is of a minority. The referral to a regular three-judge bench for further analysis leaves open the final determination on AMU’s minority status. This progression continues the long-standing legal debate stemming from S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968), which had previously denied AMU’s minority status despite its community-based origins. The forthcoming ruling will have significant implications for the autonomy and operational latitude of minority educational institutions across India.
