Aligarh Muslim University: New Supreme Court Bench To Decide Minority Status Case, Says CJI

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud led a seven-judge bench in delivering four separate judgements on AMU's minority status, with three dissenting opinions from other justices.

New Delhi: A seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Friday delivered four separate judgments in the Aligarh Muslim University minority status case. At the outset, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, who led the bench, said there were four separate opinions, including three dissenting verdicts. The CJI said he has written the majority verdict for himself and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma dissented with the majority opinion.

The CJI said the majority opinion has overruled the 1967 judgment in the case of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, where a five-judge constitution bench held that Aligarh Muslim University was not a minority institution. However, the apex court did not answer whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is a minority educational institution.

It said that another bench would be constituted to decide on a 2006 order by the Allahabad High Court overturning minority status of the educational institution.

A seven-judge constitution bench led by Chandrachud had reserved the judgment on whether the AMU can be considered a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution.

The CJI, reading the majority judgment, said that the view taken in Azeez Basha, which became the basis for denying the minority status to the AMU, is overruled. However, the CJI left it to a three-judge bench to decide afresh the minority status of the AMU based on the principles evolved in this judgment.

The CJI, who read the majority judgment, held that a minority institution must be both established and administered by a minority and added that the minority institution, prior to the Constitution, would also get equal protection under Article 30.

The CJI said the court cannot deny minority status to an institution just because it has been established by a parliamentary legislation. He said that various other factors surrounding such establishment and other aspects ought to be taken into account.

The CJI said it is not necessary that the purpose of the minority can be implemented only if the persons of the minority administer the institution. He said it is also not necessary to prove that administration rests with the minority to prove the institution to be a minority institution.

The majority judgment emphasized that the test is whether the institution exudes minority character and operates in the interest of the minority.

The CJI, in the 118-page majority judgment, said 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 minority status of the AMU, established in 1875, was restored by the Parliament through the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981. The Allahabad High Court, in January 2006 had however struck down the provision of the 1981 law. The 1981 law had accorded minority status to AMU. In 2019, the issue was referred to a seven-judge bench.

The CJI, in his majority opinion, said the purpose of Article 30(1) is also to guarantee a 'special right' to religious and linguistic minorities that have established educational institutions, and this special right is the guarantee of limited state regulation in the administration of the institution.

"The State must grant the minority institution sufficient autonomy to enable it to protect the essentials of its minority character. The regulation of the State must be relevant to the purpose of granting recognition or aid, as the case may be. This special or additional protection is guaranteed to ensure the protection of the cultural fabric of religious and linguistic minorities," said the CJI.

The CJI said that it is not necessary to prove that the administration vests with the minority to prove that it is a minority educational institution because the very purpose of Article 30(1) is to grant special rights on administration as a consequence of establishment. “To do otherwise, would amount to converting the consequence to a pre-condition”, he said.

The CJI said the right to administer is guaranteed to minority educational institutions to enable them to possess sufficient autonomy to model the educational institution according to the educational values that the community wishes to emphasise. “It is not necessary that the purpose can only be implemented if persons belonging to the community helm the administrative affairs. This is so particularly because a minority institution may wish to emphasise secular education," he said.

The CJI said to determine who established the institution, the courts must consider the genesis of the educational institution, and for this analysis, the courts must trace the origin of the idea for the establishment of the institution.

He said: “The Court must identify who was the brain behind the establishment of the educational institution. Letters, correspondence with other members of the community or with government/State officials and resolutions issued could be valid proof for establishing ideation or the impetus to found and establish. The proof of ideation must point towards one member of the minority or a group from the community".

The CJI said it is not necessary that education must be provided in the language spoken by the minority or on the religion of the minority.

The CJI said it is also important to note that the state may grant some land or other monetary aid during or after the establishment of the educational institution.

"If the land or monies were granted after the establishment, the grant would not have the effect of changing the minority character of the institution. Minority institutions are not barred from receiving aid save at the cost of their minority status," said the CJI.

The apex court said the case will be heard by a regular bench to examine the question of the minority status of AMU on the basis of the seven-judge bench verdict.

"The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgment. The papers of this batch of cases shall be placed before the regular bench for deciding whether AMU is a minority educational institution and for the adjudication of the appeal from the decision of the Allahabad High Court….”, said the CJI.

During the hearing, the Centre had submitted that AMU cannot be considered a minority institution given its “national character”. The AMU had argued that it was established by the Muslim community for educating and empowering the community.

Justice Kant, reading out his dissent, said the five-judge bench of the apex court in the Aziz Basha case had correctly decided that AMU was not a minority institution, which has attained finality. He stressed that there is no need to reopen the inquiry into the character of AMU.

Justice Kant criticised the manner in which the case was referred by a smaller bench to the present seven-judge bench and termed it as judicial impropriety on the part of the smaller bench.

The seven-judge bench decided on a reference that arose from a 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which held that the AMU, established through imperial legislation in 1920, was not a minority institution.

The bench, which also includes justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and S C Sharma, heard arguments over the course of eight days between January 10 and February 1 this year.

Currently, AMU does not follow any reservation policies of the state. However, it does have an internal reservation policy, where 50% of seats are reserved for students who have studied in its affiliated schools or colleges.

This issue was decided once before by the Supreme Court. In 1967, in the case of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that AMU was not a minority institution. It referred to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, of 1920, which established the university and held that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim community – a requirement for minority educational institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

An amendment to the AMU Act in 1981 stated that the university had been “established by the Muslims of India”. In 2005, the university, claiming minority status, reserved 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students.

The Allahabad High Court struck down the reservation policy and the 1981 amendment, holding that AMU was not a minority institution. The high court judgment was challenged in the apex court, and in 2019 the case was referred to a seven-judge bench to decide if the verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India required reconsideration.