Supreme Court upholds minority status of AMU

New Delhi, Nov 8: The Supreme Court of India has decided that the minority status of an educational institution like Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) does not change simply because the government regulates it, the institution was established long ago, or it is currently managed by non-minority members. The decision was made by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, with a narrow 4:3 majority, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Court's Ruling on Minority Status

The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, overturned a 1968 judgment in the case of S Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which had previously held that AMU lost its minority status when a parliamentary law started governing it. The Supreme Court's new ruling clarified, "The view in Azeez Basha that minority character stops when a statute comes into force is overruled. Whether AMU is a minority institution or not will now be decided as per this judgment."

The Court emphasised that the key factor in determining an institution’s minority status is who originally established it. "The court has to consider the genesis of the institute and who was behind its establishment. It is essential to see if the minority community played a role in funding or creating the institution," the Bench said.

Non-Minority Management Does Not Affect Status

The ruling made it clear that an institution's minority status is not affected if it is managed by non-minority members. "We have held that for an institution to be considered a minority institution, it only needed to be established by a minority community. It does not necessarily have to be run by minority members," the Court explained. "Minority institutions may wish to focus on secular education, and for that, having non-minority administrators should not impact their minority status."

The Court also noted that government regulation of such institutions is permitted under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, as long as it does not take away their minority character. "An educational institution established by any citizen can be regulated under Article 19(6). However, this regulation should not infringe upon the minority rights granted under Article 30," the ruling stated. The Court further clarified that Article 30 applies even to minority institutions established before the Indian Constitution came into effect, stating, "If Article 30 only applied to institutions founded after the Constitution, it would dilute its protective intent."

Dissenting Opinions

The decision, however, was not without dissent. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed with the majority. They questioned how the matter was referred to a seven-judge Bench by a two-judge Bench back in 1981. Justice Surya Kant remarked, "In my opinion, the reference was not in line with established norms of judicial propriety. It is not correct for a two-judge Bench to dictate how a larger bench should be composed."

Justice Dipankar Datta added, "If we accept this process, then tomorrow a two-judge Bench could decide to send any case to a 15-judge Bench. This is not in line with proper judicial procedure."

Justice Sharma also emphasized that an institution must be both established and administered by a minority community to claim minority status. He said, "To claim the tag of a minority institution, the institution must be fully controlled by the minority community, including the power to hire and manage staff. The goal should be the betterment of the minority community, even if the education provided is secular."

This ruling came after a prolonged legal battle involving several hearings. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan represented AMU, while Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued for the Central Government. Senior Advocates like Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid represented different stakeholders in the case.