Author : Priyadharshini, Government Law College Villupuram, TamilNadu
To the point
The MAO college(Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental college ) at Aligarh in 1877. for the educational regeneration of muslims in India , they started as a teaching institution under the Allahabad university to add more strength for muslim university , they were planned to establish a university and also they formed the Muslim University Association, and the Aligarh Muslim university was an established by the Aligarh Muslim university Act 1920.The Indian government were Introduced amendments in the AMU , for the purpose of eliminate the provisions that gave important control to muslims over the university’s administration, the Amendment were challenged by the petitioner (Azeez Basha & other). The indian government involving in the act of AMU and took amendments were violated the Article 30(1) of the constitution, because the AMU was a minority institution, and the Art 30 (1) says that the guarantees both religious & linguistic minorities the right to establish and manage the their own educational Institutions and from here the issues were raised that whether the AMU was a minority institution? and whether The government of India violated the Article 30 (1), the issue was argued by the union of India (Respondent) that the AMU was not a minority institution and also the AMU was not established by the muslim community. Since it was made by law , and it was a statutory university rather than a minority Institution, the government had the authority to amend and the administration of a public university based on the Issues raised, the supreme court held in favor of union of India (Respondent) that AMU was not a minority Institution, it was established by British government in 1920. and it could not claim protection under Art 30(1) because since it was a statutory institution and the amendment in 1965 of AMU l had the legal authority to the university established.
Abstract
In the case of Azeez Basha vs. Union of India was discussed in this Article that the AMU (Aligarh Muslim University ) was evolved from the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental college (MAO college ) so the Azzez Basha (petitioner) were challenged in the supreme court that the AMU was comes under minority institution here the Union of India made amendment in the AMU Act and the Azeez (petitioner) challenged that the government of India violated the Article 30(1) of the constitution and the supreme court was held the judgement in favor of the Union of India, the decision was dissatisfaction among the muslim community and the Indian Parliament amended the AMU Act attempting to restore its minority status and in 2005, the Allahabad High Court struck down this amendment and citing the Azeez Basha judgement as precedent .
Use of Legal Jargons
In this case of Azeez Basha v.Union of India were used the legal doctrines and articles of the constitution of India That the “Doctrine of Severability “ says that principle allows the courts to rebut the unconstitutional parts of the law , while keeping the rest of the intact, so here the supreme court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution to begin with, supreme court did not apply this doctrine in Azeez Basha and the “Doctrine of Establishment “ it says that who evolve to make an institution , the supreme court held that AMU was not established by the muslim community . so refused the minority status and the Article 30(1) says that Right of Minorities to establish and administer institutions and Article 19(6) says that reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights .
The proof
The case of Azeez Basha was decided by the supreme court on Oct 20,1967 the issue of this case is whether the AMU was under the minority institution ? and whether the government of India violated Article 30(1) ? the supreme court held that the AMU was not the minority institution because it was the statutory institution , and the government of India were not violate the Article 30(1) of the constitution and the court also held that the AMU had downing by the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO college) in 1877. The passage of the 1920 Act it was converted into a statutory university to take out its claim as a minority institution .
Conclusion
The case of Azeez Basha were set as a precedent hostile to providing minority status to
Statutory universities, influence AMU and similar institutions although, the supreme court judgement in 2024 reverse a legal decision reinstate AMU’s minority Status and amend the legal interpretation of minority rights in education in India
Case Law
St stephen’s college vs. university of Delhi
In the case of st.stephen’s college vs. university of Delhi, the court held that the minority st. slephen’s college was minority institution because the college was setting up ley christians religious.
TMA Pai Foundations vs. state of karnataka
In the case of TMA pai Foundations vs.state of Karnataka, the court held that the state can attach affix A affixed on minimum consumption of minority students based on various factors .
Sp. Mittal -v. union of India.
In the case of Mittal v. union of India, the court held that to hold the benefits of Artille 300 the community must show to be true that has it is a linguistic or religious minority conclusion
FAQS
What is known as Minority Institution ?
The Minority Institution means the group of people is in the same religion ,they were to create any education institution on their own known as the Minority Institutions.
What is the difference between the Statutory Institution and Minority Institution ?
Statutory Institution means the institution was established by the government; however, the Minority institution was established by some group of people of the same religion.
