CASE DETAILS : ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs. NARESH AGARWAL C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters
In the case relating to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by 4:3 majority), overruled the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India to the extent it held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution.
The issue whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution is now left to be decided by a regular bench based on this view of the majority.
In Azeez Basha, the Court had ruled that AMU cannot claim minority status as it was established by a statute. Today, the majority led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud overruled Azeez Basha and held that an institution will not lose its minority status merely because it was created by a statute. The majority held that the Court must examine who established the University and who was the “brain” behind it. If that enquiry is pointing towards a minority community, then the institution can claim minority status as per Article 30. For this factual determination, the Constitution Bench relegated the matter to a regular bench.
“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 majority stated.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, on his last working day, pronounced the judgment on behalf of the majority (comprising himself, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra)
Justices Surya Kant partially dissented from the majority on certain aspects, however agreed that Azeez Basha view required to be modified and clarified to a certain extent. Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma dissented.
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma was hearing a reference arising out of the 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which held that AMU was not a minority institution. The bench heard the matter 8 days before reserving it on february1
The key issue of reference for deliberation was : “What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution because it was established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or its being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority?”
The 4 main aspects for consideration before the bench were : (1) whether a University, established and governed by a statute (AMU Act 1920), can claim minority status; (2) The correctness of the 1967 judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Azeez Basha Vs Union Of India (5-judge bench) which rejected the minority status of AMU ; (3) the nature and correctness of the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to the University after the decision in Basha; (4) Whether reliance placed on the Basha decision by Allahabad High Court in AMU v. Malay Shukla in 2006 was correct in concluding that AMU being a non-minority institution could not reserve 50% seats for Muslim candidates in Medical PG Courses.
Highlights from the judgment
Majority view
Article 30 will stand diluted if it is to apply prospectively only to the institutions which were established after the commencement of the Constitution.
The words ‘incorporation’ and ‘establishment’ cannot be used interchangeably. Merely because the AMU was incorporated by an imperial legislation would not mean that it was not ‘established’ by a minority. It cannot be argued that the University was established by the 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. To determine who established the institution, the Court must trace the genesis of the institution and identify who was the “brain” behind it. The proof of ideation must point towards a member of the minority community. It has to be seen who got funds for the land and if the minority community helped.
It is not necessary that the institution was established only for the benefit of the minority community but must be predominantly for its benefit.
An educational institution is a minority educational institution if it is established by a religious or linguistic minority
