AMU minority status case: SC overrules 1967 verdict; key takeaways

NEW DELHI: A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict (4:3) on Friday to nullify a significant 1967 ruling concerning the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), which had previously stripped its minority designation. However, the final determination regarding the reinstatement of minority status has been delegated to a standard three-judge bench which is yet to be formed.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said that a regular bench will decide whether AMU is a minority institution based on the indicia laid down by the seven-judge bench.

The court said that case papers should be placed before the Chief Justice for setting up a fresh bench to decide the validity of the 2006 Allahabad HC verdict which struck down the provision of the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981.

Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma formed the dissenting group on the Constitution bench today. The majority opinion was upheld by the outgoing Chief Justice, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, who will take over as the next Chief Justice, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
Separate dissenting opinions were rendered by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma.

What is Azeez Basha case?In Azeez Basha versus Union of India case, a Constitution bench ruled that the AMU, being a central university, cannot be considered a minority institution. The verdict was later challenged as the Parliament restored the university's minority status in 1981 by passing the AMU (Amendment) Act.

The issue once again escalated in 2006, when a bench in Allahabad high court struck down the provision of the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981. The verdict was soon followed by appeals by the UPA government and the university.

10 key takeaways from Supreme Court verdict

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

It added that a regular bench should decide the question of the minority status of AMU and the correctness of the 2006 decision passed by the Allahabad high court, striking down the 1981 amendment conferring minority status on the varsity, given the principles laid down in its latest judgment.

The majority opinion said that the regulation of minority educational institutions is permissible under Article 19(6), however, those regulations should not impinge upon the minority character of the institution.

“Regulations, which may be justified on grounds stipulated under Articles 19(6) and 26, may fall foul to Article 30 if they infringe upon the minority character of the institution. This is a special right/protection which the Constitution guarantees to minority educational institutions,” it said.

It further said, “An educational institution established by any citizen can be regulated under Article 19(6). An educational institution established by a religious denomination without any element of profit can be regulated on grounds of public order, morality and health. As opposed to these two provisions, Article 30 does not circumscribe the right on any grounds. However, the right guaranteed under Article 30 is not absolute.”

Meanwhile, Justice Surya Kant said the five-judge bench of the top court in the Aziz Basha case had correctly decided that AMU was not a minority institution, which has attained finality, and that there is no need to reopen the inquiry into the character of AMU.

Justice Kant strongly criticised the manner in which the case was referred by a 3-judge bench to present 7-judge bench and termed it as a judicial impropriety on the part of the smaller bench and also on the part of the then CJI in accepting the request.

Justice Dipankar Datta fundamentally differed with CJI's majority opinion which validated AMU reference by a 2-J bench directly to a 7-J bench after doubting the 5-J bench verdict in Aziz Basha.

Justice Datta asked can a 2-J bench tomorrow doubt 'basic structure doctrine' propounded in Kesavananda Bharati case and refer it to the 15-J bench directly? The majority opinion will set a very dangerous opinion, he said and ruled that AMU is not a minority institution.

Justice S C Sharma said his opinion is neither concurring or dissenting with the majority opinion authored by CJI Chandrachud. However, he agreed with dissents that the 2-J bench could not have referred the case directly to a 7-J bench.

Criteria for grant of recognition to minority educational institutionsThe fundamental right of linguistic and religious minorities to establish and manage educational institutions is protected under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. To protect these constitutional rights, the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act was implemented.

• The educational institution should have been established by a minority community.
• The agency managing the institution should have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
• The Managing Committee of the Society and Governing body of the institution should be wholly or substantially manned by the representatives of the respective minority community.
• The educational institution should have been running for at least two academic years in accordance with the regulations laid down by statutory authorities such as the State Government, AICTE, University, Board of Technical Education, etc.
• Merely giving a nomenclature as that of belonging to a minority community will not entitle the institutions to be recognized as a minority educational institution.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875, which later became the Aligarh Muslim University. The institute was later converted into to a university by the British Raj in 1920.