Two Major Judgments Before Chief Justice DY Chandrachud Demits Office

The CJI's reserved cases concern the validity of the Madrasa Act in Uttar Pradesh and the minority status of AMU.

After completing his two-year tenure as the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud will be retiring on 10 November.

(Photo: The Quint)

After completing his two-year tenure as the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud will be retiring on 10 November. As per the norm, the CJI has to pronounce the verdict in cases where the judgment has been reserved.

CJI Chandrachud's cases concern the validity of the Madrasa Act in Uttar Pradesh (analysed here) and the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University. These rulings, touching on fundamental questions of religious and educational rights, along with other crucial rulings like Article 370 and Electoral Bonds among others, will contribute to how history will judge and remember him.

The Madrasa Case: Anjum Kadari and Anr v. Union of India and Ors

An Allahabad High Court bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidhyarthi declared the UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 unconstitutional, claiming that it violates the principle of secularism. While declaring the law as ultra vires, the High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to frame a scheme to accommodate students presently studying in Madrasas in the formal education system. 

The judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court and, fortunately, on the very first day, it was stayed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.    

"We are of the view that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection. We are inclined to issue notice," the court observed while issuing notice on five Special Leave Petitions filed against the High Court's judgment. 

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud remarked that a law per se regulating an institution belonging to a community does not ipso facto violate the principle of secularism. The court said that the Allahabad High Court prima facie misconstrued the provisions of the Madrasa Act, that it does not provide for any religious instructions, and that the object and purpose of the Statute is regulatory in nature.

The finding of the High Court that the very establishment of the Board would violate secularism appeared to conflate the Madrasa's education with the regulatory powers of the Board, the court observed.  

The judgment has been reserved after hearing arguments from both sides. The main purpose of the Board under the UP Madrasa Act is to bring Muslim education in conformity with mainstream boards like CBSE and ICSE, and if the Madrasa Act is struck down, then it defeats this purpose of the Act itself.

The AMU Case

Back in 1877, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) was founded by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, also the founder of Aligarh Muslim University. In 1920, the Aligarh Muslim University Act was passed to incorporate the MAO college into a single University named Aligarh Muslim University.   

The minority status of AMU has been a subject of intense legal scrutiny since the Supreme Court's ruling in S Azeez Basha v Union of India (1967). A five-judge bench held that AMU was not a minority institution, as it was neither "established nor administered" by Muslims, despite the 1920 Act's enactment following the community’s efforts.

The court pointed out that AMU was established under central legislation, which precluded it from claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution, meant for institutions established by religious or linguistic minorities. 

In 1981, an amendment to the AMU Act redefined the university as an institution “established by the Muslims of India” and expanded its powers to promote their educational and cultural advancement. However, in 2005, when AMU reserved 50 percent of postgraduate medical seats for Muslim students, the Allahabad High Court invalidated the policy, relying on the Azeez Basha decision.

The court ruled that the university could not reserve seats exclusively for Muslims as it was not a minority institution. This sparked a legal battle, with the Union and AMU contending that the 1981 amendment nullified the earlier judgment. 

After a prolonged delay, the National Democratic Alliance government withdrew its support for AMU's minority status in 2016, leaving the university to argue its case alone and in 2023, CJI Chandrachud constituted a seven-judge bench to reconsider the Azeez Basha decision.

In a nutshell, the questions before the court are:  

• What are the parameters for granting an education Institution (AMU) minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution?

• Does an educational institute created by a parliamentary statute enjoy minority status under Article 30?  

The petitioners argued that AMU's Muslim character should warrant protection under Article 30, as in St Stephen's case, where the court relied on the institution's historical origins to affirm its minority status.

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of AMU, submitted, The first comes from 25 (2)(a) and this is the negative view, saying a narrow view, the wider view is what we understand as part of the basic structure. Now coming to article 30, all minorities whether based on religion or language what is a minority is anterior to this, establish and administer are the rights that flow from the recognition of minority, it's important that your lordships may settle it, what is it that makes a minority, the 3 questions in my mind are the origin, the second is of nexus - whether they found the institution or not and thirdly is on the issue of numerical test.  

During the course of the hearing, the Court also debated the meaning of "establish and administer" under Article 30, with CJI Chandrachud noting that absolute control over administration is an unrealistic standard. In today’s regulated society, even minority institutions are subject to statutory limitations on how they operate, but this does not negate their minority character.

The bench pointed out that regulation of curriculum or admission policies does not strip an institution of its minority status. Moreover, minority institutions are not confined to religious education—they can administer secular institutions while retaining their minority status and are not required to admit students from their own community.

Conclusion

Both decisions will be out this week and both are significant.

In the Madrasa case, the judgment of the High Court may be set aside on the note that the High Court misconstrued the provisions of the Madrasa Act. It is harder to predict the outcome of the AMU case because apart from being a community-centred issue, it is also a political issue with voices both in favour and against from different ends of the spectrum.

Nevertheless, their significance extends far beyond the courtroom, as the rulings will have far-reaching implications for minority rights in India.

(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)