AMU's Minority Status Depends on Who Founded It, Not Its Creation by Law: Supreme Court in 4:3 Ruling
In the case Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa vs. Naresh Agarwal C.A. No. 002286 / 2006, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a 4:3 majority decision, overturned the earlier ruling in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India (1967). The Azeez Basha judgment had declared that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) could not claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution because it was established by an act of Parliament. The current bench disagreed with this view, stating that the minority status of an institution should not be denied merely because it was created through a statute. The majority held that the core issue lies in determining who originally founded the institution, not how it was later formalized by law.
11/8/20243 min read
Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa vs. Naresh Agarwal C.A. No. 002286 / 2006
In this case, a 7-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court ruled by a 4:3 majority, overturning the 1967 S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India judgment. The Azeez Basha case had previously held that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) could not claim minority status because it was created by an act of Parliament. This ruling suggested that institutions established by statute could not be classified as minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution.
However, the majority opinion in this case, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, held that an institution does not lose its minority status merely because it was incorporated by law. Instead, the key issue is to determine who initially founded the institution and who was the "brain" behind it. If it is found that a minority community was responsible for establishing the institution, it can claim minority status under Article 30, regardless of its subsequent formal incorporation by a statute.
The majority stressed that the distinction between "incorporation" and "establishment" is important. The fact that AMU was incorporated by legislation does not necessarily mean it wasn’t established by a minority community. The Court argued that a purely formalistic reading of the law should be avoided, and instead, the origins and intentions behind the institution's establishment must be examined. Based on this majority view, the question of AMU's minority status has now been sent to a regular bench for further determination.
The judgment also clarified that an institution does not need to have been established exclusively for the benefit of the minority community to claim minority status. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the administration of the institution to be entirely controlled by members of the minority community, provided the institution retains its minority character.
Judges Comprising the Constitutional Bench:
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud (delivered the majority opinion)
Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Justice JB Pardiwala
Justice Manoj Misra
Justice Surya Kant (dissenting)
Justice Dipankar Datta (dissenting)
Justice SC Sharma (dissenting)
Judges' Views:
Majority (4:3) View:
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, delivered the majority opinion.
The majority held that AMU does not lose its minority status merely because it was incorporated by law. To determine whether an institution qualifies as a minority institution, the Court must investigate its origins to identify who was responsible for its establishment. If it is found that a minority community was the "brain" behind the establishment of the institution, it can claim minority status under Article 30.
The majority also clarified that an institution can retain its minority status even if its administration is not entirely controlled by members of the minority community. The focus should be on the origins of the institution, not just on its later legal formalization.
Dissenting Opinions:
Justice Surya Kant: He argued that both the establishment and administration of an institution by a minority community are essential for it to claim minority status. He emphasized that any minority institution must be recognized by law and conform to University Grants Commission (UGC) standards. He also believed there was no conflict between the Azeez Basha judgment and the Supreme Court's later decision in TMA Pai Foundation regarding the rights of minority institutions.
Justice Dipankar Datta: Justice Datta declared that AMU is not a minority institution and disagreed with the majority. He also held that the references made in 1981 and 2019 were unnecessary.
Justice SC Sharma: Justice Sharma emphasized that both the establishment and administration of an institution must be under the control of a minority community to claim minority status. He argued that the terms "established" and "administered" must be read together. He also maintained that the minority community should have full control over the institution’s operations, including the authority to hire and fire staff, without any external interference.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision has reopened the question of AMU's minority status, referring it to a regular bench for determination. The case will be decided based on the institution's origins and the new legal framework established by the majority opinion of the Constitutional Bench.