‘Minority status of AMU not lost due to statute’: SC overrules 1967 verdict, new bench to decide AMU’s minority status

On Friday (8^th November), the Supreme Court ruled that an educational institute’s minority status does not end simply because the parliament passes a law to regulate or govern it or because it is governed by non-minority members. The court said this while hearing the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status-related case. A 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court (by a 4:3 majority) reversed the 1967 ruling in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, which declared that an institution incorporated by legislation cannot claim to be a minority institution. The Supreme Court, however, stated that a separate three-judge bench will decide whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution.

“The view in Azeez Basha that minority character stops when statute comes into force is overruled. Whether AMU is a minority or not will be decided as per this (today’s) judgment,” the Court said.

The Court stated that when determining whether an institution is a minority institution, who established the institution needs to be taken into consideration.

“The court has to consider the genesis of the institute and the court must see who was the brain behind the establishment of the institution. It has to be seen who got funds for the land and if minority community helped,” the Court said adding that administration by non-minority members will not eliminate an institution’s minority character.

“We have held that 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,” the court held.

Notably, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud delivered the judgement on behalf of the majority which included himself, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra), while Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma dissented.

The Court ruled that the government may regulate minority educational institutions till it does not violate their minority status. “An educational institution established by any citizen can be regulated under Article 19(6). This court has maintained that the right under Article 30 is not absolute. Regulation of minority educational institution is permitted under Article 19(6) provided it does not infringe the minority character of the institute,” the Court said.

The Court also ruled that Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the basic right to create and run educational institutions, applies to institutions founded by minorities before the Constitution went into effect.

“Article 30 shall stand diluted if it applies to only institutes those which have been established after the Constitution came into force. Thus, educational institutions established by minorities which were established before the constitution came into force, will also be governed by Article 30,” the court said, as reported by Bar and Bench.

In his dissenting judgement, Justice Surya Kant stated that a minority can establish an institute under Article 30, but it must be recognised by law as well as by the University Grants Commission, a statutory authority within the Education Ministry.

“The legislative intent behind a statute incorporating a university or institution would be necessary to decide its minority status,” Justice Suryakant said. In his verdict, Justice Dipankar Datta stated that AMU was not a minority institution.

Back in 2005, the AMU further introduced a policy that reserved 50% of postgraduate medical seats for Muslim candidates. This was challenged in the Allahabad High Court, which, the same year, reversed the reservation and declared the 1981 Act invalid. The court determined that the AMU could not maintain an exclusive reservation because, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the S. Azeez Basha case, it was not classified as a minority institution. In 2006, a series of eight petitions, including one from the Union government, challenged the High Court’s verdict in the Supreme Court.

In 2016, the NDA government told the Supreme Court that it was dropping its case, stating that “as the executive government at the Centre, we can’t be seen as setting up a minority institution in a secular state.” On February 12, 2019, a three-judge bench led by the then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the case to a seven-judge bench. And, today (8^th November 2024), the Supreme Court delivered its verdict while also ruling that a separate three-judge bench, which will decide whether AMU can be deemed a minority university.