Case: Aligarh Muslim University through its Registration Faizan Mustafa vs Naresh Aggarwal – Criteria for determination of a minority educational institution

Author : Yashashvi Malik, Chandigarh University

Abstract

A 19th-century Muslim reformer named Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College) in Aligarh in 1877. Through this organization, he aimed to preserve and properly balance Islamic beliefs and principles while promoting contemporary British education among Muslim culture. Although the College was mainly an institution for Muslims, it was also accessible to other community members.

In 1920, Aligarh Muslim University Act was passed (AMU act, 1920) after the merger of MAO College and Muslim University Association into the Aligarh Muslim University. Furthermore, Section 23 of AMU act stipulates that only Muslim members may participate or serve in the Court of the University, which is also the governing body of the university.

In 1951, the AMU Act was modified to eliminate the mandatory religious instruction that the university offered to Muslim students. Additionally, the clause requiring solely Muslim representation in the University Court was eliminated by the amendment. In 1965, the Act underwent an amendment. The Court no longer remained the highest governing authority of the university. It evolved into a body whose members were chosen by the Visitor, who was the Indian President. To democratize management, the authority was divided among the Executive and other university entities.

In the case of “S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India” , the petitioners claimed that under Article 30 of Indian Constitution, the amendment infringed their constitutional right for creating and running educational institutions. Furthermore,  they stated that the changes infringed against the institution’s right to engage in religious and charitable activities, the right to acquire property, the right to preserve language and culture, and freedom of religion under Articles 26, 31, 29 and 25 of the Constitution respectively.

Chief Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice R.S. Bachawat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice G.K. Mitter, and Justice V Ramaswami made up the five-judge panel that upheld the amendment on October 20, 1967, holding that the petitioners’ fundamental rights were not violated. The Bench reasoned that AMU was not created or governed by the Muslim minority. “It is possible that the 1920 Act was passed because of the efforts of the Muslim minority,” the Court also stated, emphasizing that Central Legislation enacted the act. However, this does not indicate that the Muslim minority formed Aligarh University when it was established under the 1920 Act. They decided that the Act’s provisions clearly shows that university’s management was not “vested in the minority.”

The Act was changed in 1981 to define “university” as an educational establishment “founded by the Muslims of India,” which was first MAO College and then AMU. A new provision for advancing the educational and cultural development of the “Muslims of India” was added to the University’s powers under Section 5.

In 2005, AMU claimed to be a minority institution and reserved 50% of its postgraduate medical program seats for Muslim applicants. This was disputed in Dr. Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India (2005). The petitioners referenced S.A. Basha to buttress their argument and that the university is not a minority institution. Both the University and the Union maintained that the 1981 amendment nullified S.A. Basha. As a result, it may incorporate regulations that will benefit Muslim students. According to S. Azeez Basha, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the AMU was not a minority institution and so could not have exclusive reservations, reversing the reservation policy.

In 2006, both the University and the central government challenged the High Court’s verdict to the SC and then on April 24, 2006, a Division Bench of Justice D.K. Jain and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan suspended the AMU’s reservation program. The policy’s constitutionality was submitted to a larger bench for review.

The NDA administration, which was elected to the Union in 2014, withdrew from their appeal in 2016, saying that they did not acknowledge the university’s minority status. The university presents its own argument.

Chief Justice R. Gogoi, with a three-judge panel in Feb 2019 recommended the S. Azeez Basha ruling for reconsideration to a seven-judge panel.

In October 2023, the case was brought before the Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud then assembled a seven-judge panel for its hearing.

Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status has been a topic of constitutional and legal discussion in India for a number of decades. The interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which grants religious and linguistic minorities the freedom to create and run the educational institutions of their choosing, is the main issue at hand in this case. Whether AMU can assert minority status and the ensuing rights and benefits granted under Article 30 while being founded by  legislation (the AMU Act of 1920) is the central question in the case.

Bench:

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra.

Facts

1. In order to uphold Islamic principles and encourage modern education among Muslims, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founded AMU in 1877 as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO). With the passage of the AMU Act in 1920, the college subsequently changed its name to Aligarh Muslim University. The Act stipulated that only members of the Muslim community could serve on the Court, AMU’s governing body.

2. In S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that AMU was created by the statute, therefore it is not entitled to minority status. According to the Court, AMU was neither founded nor run by a linguistic or religious minority. This ruling was founded on the idea that AMU could not be regarded as a minority institution due to legislative formation.


3. In 1981, the AMU Act was modified and stated that the university was founded only by Muslims. This change was founded by Indian Muslims. This amendment sought to give a minority status to the university in response to the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision.

4. Citing that AMU was not a minority institution, the Allahabad High Court invalidated the University’s 2006 decision to set aside 50% of seats for Muslim applicants in postgraduate medical programs. The Supreme Court then heard an appeal of the matter.


5. In February 2019, a three-judge court headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a seven-judge Constitution court to reexamine the question of educational institution indicators for claiming

Issues

1. Does Article 30 of the Indian Constitution allow educational institutions created by statute (like AMU, through the AMU Act 1920) to claim minority status?

2. Is it appropriate to overturn the ruling of the case “S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India”, which held that AMU was created by statute and therefore is not eligible to claim minority status ?


3. Is it constitutionally valid to modify the AMU Act in 1981 just to grant AMU minority status?

4. Was the 2006 ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which rejected AMU’s application for minority status and ruled that it was not permitted to set aside 50% of seats for Muslim applicants in postgraduate medical programs, accurate?

5. What standards or indicators ought to be used to ascertain whether The ruling in Azeez Basha that a statute-incorporated entity cannot claim to be a minority institution was deemed excessively formalistic by the majority. Rather, the weather Article 30 of the Constitution permits an educational institution to be considered a minority educational institution.

Observations:

The 1967 decision in S. Azeez Basha v. The Union of India was overturned by the Supreme Court in a historic decision, holding that a statute-established institution cannot claim to be a minority institution. The Court underlined that the Azeez Basha ruling was founded on a formalist perspective that disregarded the institution’s historical practicality.

oversee educational establishments. The institution’s true history and mission should be highlighted, not just its legal requirements. The Court reasoned that while the institution does not have to be founded only by members of a minority community, it must clearly demonstrate its purpose and the majority of its benefits to the minority population.

The Court determined that identifying the institution’s founder, the “brain” behind it, and those who contributed to its establishment—particularly in terms of finance and land—are the primary criteria for determining whether an educational institution qualifies as a minority institution or not under Article 30 of Indian Constitution. The institution may make a claim if its founding may be linked to a linguistic or religious minority status, even if later codified by statute.

The Court stressed that the organization’s administration does not have to be entirely controlled by the minority group in order to be considered a minority institution. The right to run a minority institution is an extension of the right to form one, although the minority group may appoint non-members to administration positions. What is critical is that the institution’s aim be consistent with promoting and protecting the interests of the minority population.

The majority decision specifically overturned Azeez Basha, finding that an educational institution does not lose its minority identity just because it was formed by statute. The case established that the relevant criteria is to determine who was responsible for its establishment and if the minority population profited disproportionately from it.

Justice SC Sharma, Justices Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta dissented in part, and recognized that the Azeez Basha verdict needed to be modified but disagreed on specifics. The minority opinion also advised that the subject be thoroughly considered, taking into account both legal precedents and practical realities.

After that, the case was sent to the Original Bench, which was tasked with reviewing the relevant facts and deciding whether or not AMU should be given minority status.

Implication:

1. Effect on the University’s Minority Status: Based on the factual examination into its establishment, the ruling does not answer whether AMU is a minority school. This establishes the foundation for a regular bench to determine whether AMU qualifies as a minority, taking into mind the community that created it and its initial purpose.

2. Wider Legal Precedent: This ruling fundamentally changes India’s legal environment with regard to minority institutions’ rights. By overturning Azeez Basha, the Court shifted the focus away from the formal design of the statute and toward the institution’s genuine founding and goals.
It acknowledges that if an organization’s foundation and goals support the interests of a linguistic or religious minority, it can nevertheless claim minority status even if it was established by statute.

3. Implications for Other organizations: Other organizations that were founded by statutes and make the claim that they serve minority groups may be impacted by the ruling. The ruling makes it possible to determine minority status in a more sophisticated manner, which may have an impact on the claims made by other Indian educational institutions.

4. Effect on Admissions and Reservations: This ruling may have a significant effect on admissions and reservations for universities that identify as minority. Depending on its minority status, AMU may or may not be entitled to reserve seats for Muslim candidates, according to the 2006 ruling. The decision made by the regular bench could have an impact on similar claims made by other institutions.

FAQS

Q1:   What is the main issue in the case ?
Ans: The main issue in the case arises whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) can assert minority status under Article 30 or not, and on what basis.

Q2:  Explain Article 30 of the Indian Constitution ?
Ans: Article 30 interprets that, any minority community based on language or religion may establish their own educational institution without any discrimination and with the aid of the state government.