Is Aligarh Muslim University a minority institution? The SC verdict, case decoded

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled its 1967 verdict stating that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot be considered a minority institution.

The seven-judge Constitution bench of the apex court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, also said the question of whether the AMU is a minority institution would be referred to a separate bench.

CJI Chandrachud, on his last working day, said there were four separate opinions, including three dissenting verdicts.

The CJI wrote the majority verdict for himself and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra. He said Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma have penned their separate dissenting verdicts.

But what do we know about the case and the verdict?

Let’s take a closer look:

First, let’s take a brief look at the AMU.

As per the AMU website, the university has its roots in the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College which was established in Uttar Pradesh’s Aligarh on 24 May, 1875, by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

Khan wanted to emulate the universities he had seen on a trip to London – Oxford and Cambridge.

The idea behind this university was to set up a college up to the standards of the British education system.

The case

As per Indian Express, in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled on a petition contesting two amendments to the university’s founding Act.

The plea argued that the amendments – passed in 1951 and 1965 –  denied Muslims the right to run the university under Article 30 of the Constitution.

As per New Indian Express, Article 30, adopted on December 8, 1948, states, “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

The first amendment let non-Muslims serve on the University Court – its then  governing body. It also substituted the Lord Rector of the university with the Visitor – the President of India.

The second amendment elevated the role of AMU’s Executive Council and thereby displaced the University Court as the supreme governing body.

The five-judge Constitution bench in 1967 in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case ruled that the AMU cannot be considered a minority institution.

The court held that the AMU was neither founded nor administered by a Muslim minority.

Instead, the court said that the AMU had been established by a Central Act – the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, as per Indian Express.

But that wasn’t the end of it.

That decision led to the ruling Centre getting much blowback from the Muslim community.

The government responded by passing the AMU (Amendment) Act in Parliament in 1981.

This Act stated that the AMU was “established by the Muslim community to promote the cultural and educational advancement of Muslims in India,” as per Indian Express.

However, there was still another twist in the tale.

In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which AMU was accorded minority status.

As per NDTV, the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre and the AMU both appealed the verdict.

The matter was then taken up by the Supreme Court.

The BJP-led NDA government informed the Supreme Court in 2016 that it would withdraw the appeal filed by the erstwhile UPA dispensation.

It had cited the apex court’s 1967 judgment in the Basha case to claim that AMU was not a minority institution since it was a central university funded by the government.

As per New Indian Express, a three-judge bench of the apex court in 2019 sent the matter to a seven-judge bench.

The verdict

As per New Indian Express, the AMU was represented by Dr Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid, and Shadan Farasat.

The Centre was represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Guru Krishna Kumar, Vinay Navare, and Yatinder Singh as well as Additional Solicitor Generals Vikramjit Banerjee and KM Nataraj.

As per Bar and Bench, the key issue of reference under consideration by the Supreme Court was: “What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution because it was established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or its being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority?"

As per Live Law, the apex court considered four key facets of the case

Whether the university, established and governed by the 1920 Act could lay claim to minority status
Whether the 1967 judgment of the Supreme Court in S Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India was correct
Whether the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act passed by Parliament was correct
Whether the Allahabad High Court, which relied on the 1967 decision to determine the 2006 case was correct

The court, overruling the 1967 verdict, stated, “the view taken in Azeez Basha that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled.”

Chandrachud, pronouncing the majority verdict, laid down tests for considering the issue of minority status of AMU.

“It is not necessary that the purpose of the minority can be implemented only if persons from the minority community administer the institution,” CJI Chandrachud said, as per New Indian Express.

“The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgement,” the CJI added.

The apex court by a 4:3 majority said the judicial records of the case should be placed before the CJI to sett up a fresh bench to decide the validity of a 2006 Allahabad High Court verdict.

As per Bar and Bench, the apex court in its majority verdict held that it who established the AMU, and who was the ‘brains’ behind it, must be determined.

It said the relevant test for the AMU seeking minority tag under Article 30 is who ‘established’ it and not who is ‘administering’ it.

If the investigation finds that a minority community did so, then the AMU can claim the minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution, as per Bar and Bench.

The dissent

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Surya Kant said the reference of the matter to a seven-judge bench by a division bench of the apex court was not correct whereas Justice Dipankar Datta echoed a similar sentiment opining it might set a “dangerous precedent”.

“A two-judge bench tomorrow may say I doubt the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati verdict). I refer it to a 15-judge bench. This is what exactly would happen if we accept the majority opinion. Can it be done?” asked Justice Datta.

Justice Datta in the concluding part of his verdict wrote, “In terms of clause 5 of Article 145, it is my firm opinion that not only do the references do not require an answer, it is also declared that AMU is not a minority educational institution and that the appeals seeking minority status for it should fail.”

Pronouncing a separate opinion on the matter, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma agreed with the two other dissenting judges on the point of reference.

“The establishment of an institution by the minority is necessary for the said minority to claim right of administration under Article 30 (of the Constitution),” he opined.

“I would like to make it very clear that my judgement is neither an assenting nor a dissenting judgement. It is my personal opinion based upon the law, the judgements cited and the arguments and the facts on the subject,” clarified Justice Sharma.

The apex court has now referred the matter to a regular bench.

The court reserved its verdict on February 1.

This after it heard eight days of arguments from January 23.

With inputs from agencies