The story so far: In a narrow 4-3 majority verdict, the Supreme Court on November 8, 2024, overturned its 1967 ruling in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which had previously served as the basis for denying Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) its minority institution status. The majority verdict was penned by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and endorsed by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma dissented in separate opinions.
What constitutes a ‘minority institution’?
Article 30(1) of the Constitution guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the fundamental right to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(2) further mandates that the state must ensure “equality of treatment” in granting aid to all educational institutions, regardless of their minority status. Notably, such institutions enjoy greater autonomy than most others. Under Article 15(5), they are exempt from providing reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and may reserve up to 50% of seats for students from their own community. In the landmark T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) case, the Supreme Court clarified that a ‘minority’ status should be determined based on the demographic composition of the concerned State, rather than the national population.
What is the background of the case?
In 1875, Muslim reformer and educationist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College in Aligarh to offer modern British education rooted in Islamic values to Muslims. In 1920, the Aligarh Muslim University Act (AMU Act) was passed, incorporating MAO College and the Muslim University Association into AMU. Under Section 23 of the Act, only Muslims were permitted to be members of the university’s governing body, known as the Court. In 1951, this mandate for Muslim-only representation on the Court was abolished. A subsequent amendment in 1965 redistributed the Court’s powers among other administrative bodies, with provisions allowing the President of India to nominate members to it.
However, in 1967, the Supreme Court, in Azeez Basha, upheld the amendments to the Act, reasoning that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority since it had been established through central legislation. This decision sparked widespread protests, ultimately leading to an amendment of the AMU Act in 1981, which officially recognised the university’s minority status.
In 2005, the university introduced a policy reserving 50% of seats in its postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students. This was subsequently challenged before the Allahabad High Court which struck it down on the ground that the university did not qualify as a minority institution as per the Azeez Basha ruling. In 2006, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court stayed the reservation policy and referred the case to a larger Bench. In 2019, a three-judge Bench headed by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the Azeez Basha decision for reconsideration by a seven-judge Bench. The matter stayed in limbo till October last year when Justice Chandrachud constituted a seven-judge bench to hear it.
What did the majority rule?
Justice Chandrachud, in an expansive interpretation of Article 30, affirmed that educational institutions established prior to the adoption of the Constitution are equally entitled to the protections granted under Article 30(1). He clarified that statutory enactments conferring legal recognition or status upon such institutions do not compromise their minority character, provided their foundational purpose was “predominantly” aimed at benefiting the minority community.
The majority verdict further emphasised that an institution does not forfeit its minority character simply because its administration is no longer vested with the community. The judges reasoned that founders or the minority community might appoint individuals from outside the community to helm the administrative affairs, particularly if the institution seeks to focus on secular education. “This may be the case for professional colleges which offer specialised courses such as law, medicine, or architecture, where the founders may not possess the knowledge, experience, or insight necessary to manage or administer the institution personally,” they added.
Accordingly, the majority overturned the longstanding Azeez Basha ruling, asserting that treating legal formalities for recognition or degree conferral as grounds to nullify an institution’s minority status would constitute a breach of fundamental rights. However, Justice Chandrachud clarified that the onus rests on the concerned religious or linguistic minorities to demonstrate that the educational institution was primarily established for the benefit of their community to qualify for protection under Article 30(1). He pointed out that such an assessment of the “brain” behind an institution’s creation could be conducted through a comprehensive review of documents, correspondence and historical records.
Dismissing the Centre’s contentions, the judges further declared that recognising an institution as one of national importance does not inherently diminish its minority character, as the national and minority attributes are “not at odds with each other nor mutually exclusive.” They also refused to assign any weight to either the provision of religious instruction or the prominence of religious buildings, such as the St. Stephen’s College church or AMU mosque, in determining an institution’s minority status.
What do the dissenting opinions state?
Justice Kant primarily differed from the majority on procedural grounds, arguing that the two-judge Bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools (1981), which had initially questioned the precedent set by a five-judge Bench in Azeez Basha, overstepped its jurisdiction by referring the matter directly to a seven-judge bench. He reasoned that this undermined the Chief Justice’s authority as the “master of the roster.”
While concurring with Justice Kant on procedural impropriety, Justice Datta questioned the legitimacy of AMU’s minority status, asserting that conferring such recognition after nearly a century would amount to “historical revisionism.” Notably, he critiqued the lack of constructive discussions among the judges on the bench, revealing that the draft opinions from Justice Chandrachud—later forming the majority judgment—were received late and underwent frequent revisions. In a likely reference to the majority ruling, Justice Datta remarked that judges should refrain from disregarding long-standing precedents in favour of judicial activism.
Justice Sharma too concluded that initial support from a minority community does not automatically grant an institution minority status, particularly if the actual control vests with the government.
What happens next?
A regular bench, assigned by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, will now reevaluate AMU’s minority character based on criteria set by the majority without being constrained by Azeez Basha. Meanwhile, the stay on the university’s 2005 reservation policy will persist until a final determination is made. This reassessment is likely to have far-reaching implications for AMU’s autonomy, its authority to reserve seats for Muslim students, and the broader discourse on minority rights in India.
Published – November 12, 2024 08:30 am IST
