Font size:
Print
AMU and Minority Status
Context:
On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a 4-3 majority verdict overturning its 1967 decision in S. Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority institution status.
More on News
- The majority judgement, authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, ruled in favour of AMU.
- Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma dissented, each offering separate opinions.
Minority Institutions
- Article 30(1): This article of the Constitution guarantees the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice.
- Article 30(2): It ensures equal treatment in state aid to all institutions, regardless of their minority status.
- Autonomy: Minority institutions enjoy significant autonomy, including the ability to reserve up to 50% of seats for their community members, and are exempt from providing reservations for SC/STs under Article 15(5).
- The Supreme Court in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002) clarified that minority status is based on the state’s demographic composition.
Background of the Case
- 1875: Establishment of MAO College: Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a Muslim reformer and educator, founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College in Aligarh to provide modern British education based on Islamic values for Muslims.
- 1920 – AMU Act: The Aligarh Muslim University Act (AMU Act) was passed, integrating MAO College and the Muslim University Association into Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
- Section 23 of AMU Act (1920): Only Muslims were allowed to be members of the university’s governing body, the Court.
- 1951 – Abolition of Muslim-Only Representation: The requirement for Muslim-only representation on the Court was abolished.
- 1965 – Redistribution of Powers: An amendment redistributed the Court’s powers among other administrative bodies, including allowing the President of India to nominate members.
- 1967 – Azeez Basha Ruling: The Supreme Court, in the Azeez Basha case, upheld the amendments, stating that AMU was not established or administered by a Muslim minority since it was created through central legislation.
- 1981 – Amendment for Minority Status: In response to protests, the AMU Act was amended to officially recognise the university’s minority status.
- 2005 – Postgraduate Medical Course Reservation: AMU introduced a policy reserving 50% of seats in its postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students.
- 2005 – Allahabad High Court Ruling: The Allahabad High Court struck down the reservation policy, ruling that AMU did not qualify as a minority institution as per the Azeez Basha ruling.
- 2006 – Supreme Court Stay: A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court stayed the reservation policy and referred the case to a larger Bench.
- 2019 – Reconsideration of Azeez Basha: A three-judge Bench headed by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the Azeez Basha decision for reconsideration by a seven-judge Bench.
- 2023 – Seven-Judge Bench Formation: In October 2023, Justice Chandrachud constituted a seven-judge bench to hear the case, which had been in limbo for several years.
Majority Opinion
- Justice Chandrachud, interpreting Article 30 expansively, ruled that educational institutions established before the Constitution are entitled to protections under Article 30(1) if their primary purpose was to benefit a minority community.
- He clarified that statutory recognition or change in administration does not strip an institution of its minority status, especially if the founders or community appoint non-community members to manage secular education.
- The majority overturned the Azeez Basha ruling, emphasising that legal formalities for recognition should not invalidate an institution’s minority status.
- The onus is on the minority to prove the institution was created primarily for their benefit.
- The court also ruled that recognising an institution as of national importance does not diminish its minority status, and religious aspects like buildings or instruction are not decisive in determining minority status.
Dissenting Opinions
- Justice Kant disagreed on procedural grounds, arguing the referral to a seven-judge Bench was improper, undermining the Chief Justice’s authority.
- Justice Datta, while agreeing on procedural issues, questioned the legitimacy of granting AMU minority status after nearly a century, calling it “historical revisionism,” and criticised the lack of constructive discussions.
- Justice Sharma argued that initial support from a minority community doesn’t automatically grant minority status, especially when the institution is controlled by the government.
What Next?
- A regular bench, appointed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, will now reconsider AMU’s minority status using the criteria outlined by the majority, without being bound by the Azeez Basha decision.
- The stay on the university’s 2005 reservation policy will continue until a final ruling is made.
- This reassessment could have significant consequences for AMU’s autonomy, its ability to reserve seats for Muslim students, and the wider debate on minority rights in India.
