How the Supreme Court Has Cleared the Path for AMU’s Minority Status

A seven-judge bench gave its decision by a 4:3 majority and overruled S Azeez Basha v Union of India.

“A university may well be both national and ergo, of national importance, as well as minority in character. There is no reason why a minority education institution cannot also be an institution of national importance.”  

– AMU v Naresh Agarwal & Ors

On 8 November, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal & Ors, a case that dealt with whether AMU can be classified as a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

A seven-judge bench gave its decision by a 4:3 majority, and overruled the judgment in S Azeez Basha v Union of India, which had held that an institution incorporated through a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution.

The issue of whether AMU is a minority institution with respect to the Constitution is now left to be decided by a regular bench of the Supreme Court, based on the majority ruling in AMU v Naresh Agarwal (Supra):

“The view taken in Azeez Basha (supra) that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled. The questions referred are answered in the above terms. The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgment. The papers of this batch of cases shall be placed before the regular bench for deciding whether AMU is a minority educational institution and for the adjudication of the appeal from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Malay Shukla (supra) after receiving instructions from the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.” 

In a nutshell, the barrier of the Azeez Basha judgment has been removed by the Supreme Court, which means that as of today, there is no court ruling that will act as a hurdle for AMU to attain its minority status. In the majority judgment, the court held that “the Courts must trace the origin of the idea for the establishment of the institution. The Court must identify who was the brain behind the establishment of the educational institution.” 

In Azeez Basha, because AMU was established by a statute and not by the Muslim community, it did not fulfil the "establishment" requirement, and therefore, could not benefit from the rights that accompany Article 30(1). The Court also rejected arguments that the Muslim community's role in the founding of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (the precursor to AMU) should be sufficient.

The test laid by the court will make it easier for the university to prove that it was established by Muslims.

The Supreme Court has also summarised what constitutes minority status. In Paras 135 to 139, the court has laid down certain features to be kept in mind by the court while determining minority status.

Firstly, the court must focus on the origin or ‘genesis’ of the educational institution to determine who established it. In this case, the brain behind the University was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the same was pleaded before the court.

The second criterion is the purpose for which the institution was established. Though it is not mandatory that the institution must exclusively serve a religious or linguistic minority, it must primarily benefit that particular community. It is not necessary for minority members to dominate the administrative structure to prove that it is a minority institution. In this regard, the court observed:

“137. The third test is tracing the steps taken towards the implementation of the idea. Information on who contributed the funds for its creation, who was responsible for obtaining the land, and whether the land was donated by a member of the minority community or purchased from funds raised by the minority community for this purpose or donated by a person from some other community specifically for the establishment of a minority educational institution are elements that must be considered. Similar questions must be asked of its other assets. Other important questions are: who took the steps necessary for establishing the institution (such as obtaining the relevant permissions, constructing the buildings, and arranging other infrastructure)? It is also important to note that the state may grant some land or other monetary aid during or after the establishment of the educational institution.” 

One of the main submissions on behalf of the respondents was that if a minority institution has been recognised as an institute of national importance, then it amounts to an abrogation of its minority character. In this regard, the majority opinion held that the declaration of an institution as one of national importance does not amount to a change in the minority character:

“A university may well be both national and ergo, of national importance, as well as minority in character. There is no reason why a minority educational institution cannot also be an institution of national importance. Third, Entries 63 and 64 provide Parliament with the power to declare an institution to be of national importance. An interpretation that an institution of national importance cannot be a minority institution would amount to rendering the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) subservient to the legislative power of Parliament. Parliament can in terms of Entries 63 and 64 declare any institution to be of national importance. If the submission of the respondents is accepted, such a declaration would automatically exclude the institution(s) from the scope of Article 30(1).” 

Supreme Court

In conclusion, the judgment will have a long-lasting impact on other minority institutions as well, solidifying their rights under Article 30(1). It reinforces the principle that the minority community's involvement in establishing and administering institutions is essential, and that state legislation cannot strip away these constitutional protections. This ruling is set to reshape the jurisprudence surrounding Article 30, ensuring stronger safeguards for minority educational institutions across the country, furthering their autonomy and right to self-administration. 

(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.)