Case: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa vs Naresh Agarwal
BENCH- Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice SANJIV KHANNA, Justice SURYA KANT, Justice J.B. PARDIWALA, Justice DIPANKAR DATTA, Justice MANOJ MISRA, Justice SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Introduction:
The issue of the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has been a subject of legal and constitutional debate in India for several decades. This case primarily concerns the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The question at the heart of the case is whether AMU, despite being established through a statute (the AMU Act of 1920), can claim minority status and the consequent rights and privileges afforded under Article 30.
Facts of the Case:
1. AMU was originally established as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1877 to promote modern education among the Muslim community while preserving Islamic values. The college later evolved into Aligarh Muslim University in 1920, through the AMU Act 1920. The Act specified that the governing body (the Court) of AMU should only consist of persons belonging to the Muslim community.
2. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, ruled that AMU could not claim minority status, as it was established by a statute. The Court held that AMU was not an institution created or administered by a religious or linguistic minority. This judgment was based on the view that statutory creation precluded the possibility of AMU being considered a minority institution.
3. In 1981, the AMU Act was amended to declare that the University was established by Muslims of India. This amendment was in response to the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling and aimed to grant minority status to the University.
4. In 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the University’s decision to reserve 50% seats for Muslim candidates in medical postgraduate courses, citing that AMU was not a minority institution. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
5. The case was referred to a 7-judge Constitution Bench by a 3-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi in February 2019 to reconsider the issue of indicators of educational institution to claim minority status.
Issues:
1. Whether an educational institution established by a statute (such as AMU, through the AMU Act 1920) can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1967), which ruled that AMU could not claim minority status because it was created by a statute, should be overruled?
3. Whether the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to AMU, is constitutionally valid and correct?
4. Whether the Allahabad High Court’s 2006 judgment, which dismissed AMU’s claim for minority status and held that it could not reserve 50% seats for Muslim candidates in Medical PG Courses, was correct?
5. What criteria or indicia should be applied to determine whether an educational institution can be regarded as a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution?
Observations:
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court overruled the 1967 ruling in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India to the extent that it held that an institution established by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution. The Court emphasized that the Azeez Basha decision was based on a formalistic view that ignored the practical reality of the institution’s origins.
The majority held that the judgment in Azeez Basha that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution was overly formalistic. Instead, the Court emphasized that Article 30 of the Constitution grants the right to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The focus should be on the actual origins and the purpose of the institution, not merely its legal formalities. The Court reasoned that it is not necessary for the institution to be created exclusively by members of a minority community, but the intent and the predominant benefit to the minority community must be evident.
The Court laid down that to determine whether an educational institution is a minority institution under Article 30, the key test is to examine who established the institution, who was the "brain" behind it, and who contributed to its founding, especially in terms of land and funding. If the establishment of the institution can be traced to a religious or linguistic minority community, then the institution can claim minority status, even if it was later incorporated by statute.
The Court clarified that it is not necessary for the administration of the institution to be exclusively in the hands of the minority community for it to be considered a minority institution. The right to administer a minority institution is an extension of the right to establish it, but the minority community may choose to have non-members in administrative roles. What is crucial is that the institution's purpose must align with the promotion and protection of the interests of the minority community.
The majority judgment explicitly overruled Azeez Basha, holding that an educational institution does not lose its minority status merely because it was created through a statute. The case laid down that the proper test is to identify who was responsible for its establishment and whether the minority community predominantly benefited from it.
Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma dissented in part, agreeing that the Azeez Basha ruling required modification but differing on specific aspects. The dissenting opinion also suggested that the issue should be carefully analysed, considering both legal precedents and practical realities.
The matter then was referred to the Original Bench, to examine the factual details and determine the issue in the original case as to whether AMU should be granted minority status.
Implication:
1. Impact on AMU’s Minority Status: The ruling leaves open the question of whether AMU qualifies as a minority institution, based on the factual inquiry into its founding. This sets the stage for a regular bench to determine AMU's minority status, considering the community that established it and the intent behind its creation.
2. Broader Legal Precedent: This judgment significantly alters the legal landscape regarding the rights of minority institutions in India. By overruled Azeez Basha, the Court shifted the focus from formal statutory creation to the actual origins and purposes of the institution. It recognizes that an institution can claim minority status even if it was created by a statute, provided its establishment and objective align with the interests of a religious or linguistic minority.
3. Implications for Other Institutions: The decision may affect other institutions that were established by statutes but claim to serve minority communities. The judgment opens the door for a more nuanced approach to determining minority status, which could influence how other educational institutions in India make such claims.
4. Impact on Reservations and Admissions: This decision could have far-reaching implications for reservations and admissions in institutions claiming minority status. AMU’s ability to reserve seats for Muslim candidates, as claimed in the 2006 case, depends on the determination of its minority status. Depending on the outcome of the regular bench’s determination, similar claims by other institutions may be affected.
