Case Citation

C.A. No. 2286/2006
Judgment Date: 8 November 2024
Bench Composition: Chief Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Satish C. Sharma

Key Legal Questions

1. When does an educational institution qualify as a minority institution entitled to the protections under Article 30 of the Constitution?
2. Is the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1967 INSC 238), which held that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is not a minority institution, correct?

Factual Background

1. Foundation of AMU:
   • The Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) was established by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan on 8 January 1877 in Aligarh.
   • The college was later incorporated as Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in 1920 through the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 enacted by the British Imperial Legislative Council.
2. Constitutional Context:
   • Article 30(1) of the Constitution, effective from 1950, grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
3. 1967 – Azeez Basha Judgment:
   • A Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution since it was established by an Act of the Legislature, rather than directly by a minority community.
   • The judgment interpreted “establish and administer” under Article 30(1) to exclude institutions created by statute.
4. 1981 Amendment:
   • Parliament enacted the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1981, redefining AMU as an institution “established by the Muslims of India,” evolving from the MAO College to further the educational and cultural advancement of Indian Muslims.
5. 2005 Allahabad High Court Judgment:
   • Declared AMU’s 50% reservation for Muslim students in its postgraduate medical program unconstitutional.
   • Held that AMU was not a minority institution under Article 30(1), relying on Azeez Basha.
6. 2019 Supreme Court Referral:
   • A Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the correctness of Azeez Basha and AMU’s minority status to a Seven-Judge Bench.
   • The reference arose from the unresolved question in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools (1981), where a Two-Judge Bench had questioned the correctness of Azeez Basha.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, by a 4-3 majority, overruled Azeez Basha. The majority held that statutory incorporation does not strip an institution of its minority status and that Article 30(1) protections apply to institutions established before the Constitution’s adoption.

The Court also laid down the criteria for determining when an institution qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30(1).

Key Observations and Findings

1. Validity of Referral in Rahmaniya

• Majority Opinion:
  • Upheld the referral made in Rahmaniya, affirming that the Chief Justice retains discretionary authority to assign cases to any Bench, irrespective of the strength of the referring Bench.
  • Highlighted that questioning the correctness of Azeez Basha in Rahmaniya was within the powers of the Court.
• Dissenting Opinions:
  • Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish C. Sharma held that the referral breached judicial propriety.
  • Justice Kant emphasized that a Two-Judge Bench in Rahmaniya lacked the authority to question a Five-Judge Constitution Bench ruling in Azeez Basha.
  • Justice Datta observed that the issue should have been referred to a Three-Judge Bench first, rather than directly to a Seven-Judge Bench.

2. Minority Status and Statutory Creation

• Majority Opinion:
  • Minority status depends on the community’s involvement in the institution’s founding, not the process of statutory incorporation.
  • Incorporation by statute does not negate an institution’s minority character if the community predominantly supports and initiates its creation.
  • Article 30(1) protections apply to institutions established both before and after the Constitution came into force.
• Dissenting Opinions:
  • Justice Datta held that statutory establishment often involves significant state control, which undermines claims of minority administration.
  • Justice Sharma noted that minority status requires proof of legal and factual control over the institution’s administration by the minority community.

3. Overruling Azeez Basha

• Majority Opinion:
  • Azeez Basha misinterpreted the requirements of Article 30(1). The distinction between statutory incorporation and establishment by a minority community was blurred in the earlier judgment.
  • Emphasized that minority institutions created before 1950 are entitled to Article 30(1) protections.
• Dissenting Opinions:
  • Justice Kant agreed that Azeez Basha needed clarification but questioned whether overruling the judgment was procedurally valid.
  • Justice Sharma emphasized that Azeez Basha dealt with unique facts and should not have been entirely overruled.

4. Criteria for Determining Minority Educational Institutions

The Court established the following criteria for recognizing minority institutions under Article 30(1):

1. The institution must predominantly benefit the minority community, but it need not exclusively serve them.
2. Courts must assess the community’s involvement in founding the institution, including funding, land acquisition, and its stated objectives.
3. The administration need not vest entirely with the minority community, but it must affirm the institution’s minority purpose.
4. The national importance of an institution does not negate its minority character.

5. AMU’s Minority Status

• Majority Opinion:
  • Deferred the question of AMU’s minority status to another Bench, stating that the current proceedings were limited to laying down the criteria for minority institutions.
• Justice Datta’s Dissent:
  • Concluded that AMU is not a minority institution, citing the following:
    • The university’s governance structure, funding, and admissions demonstrate extensive state control.
    • Minority-linked societies tied to AMU’s history were dissolved with the enactment of the AMU Act.
    • The AMU Act’s preamble lacked explicit recognition of minority contributions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, by a 4-3 majority, overruled Azeez Basha, clarifying that institutions established by minority communities but incorporated through statutory processes can still qualify as minority institutions under Article 30(1). However, the specific minority status of AMU will be determined by a separate Bench based on the principles laid out in this judgment.

View Judgment