7-Judge Bench Overturns, with 4:3 ratio, the 1967 Azeez Basha Verdict and recognizes Aligarh Muslim University’s Right to Claim Minority Status

In the landmark case concerning the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma, by a 4:3 majority, overturned the 1967 judgement in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662 (Tap here). This judgement previously held that an institution 'established by statute' could not claim minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. The present ruling clarifies that Aligarh Muslim University’s status as a minority institution does not negate its establishment by a statute, setting a new framework to assess institutional minority status. The matter is now sent back to a regular bench for final adjudication in line with these findings.

The Supreme Court addressed whether AMU, established by statute, could claim minority status, revisiting the 1967 S. Azeez Basha ruling that denied it. The Court assessed the validity of the 1981 amendment granting AMU minority status and whether the 2006 Allahabad HC judgement in Aligarh Muslim University v. Malay Shukla, Spl.Appeal No.1321/2005 (Tap here) was correct in denying AMU the right to reserve seats for Muslim students.

Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, leading the majority with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, recognised Article 30(1)'s importance as an anti-discrimination and special rights provision, stating that legislation discriminating against religious or linguistic minorities in educational institutions is "ultra vires."

He further asserted that for an institution to be classified as a minority institution under Article 30(1), it must be established by the minority group it seeks to serve. In this context, he specifies, "The right guaranteed by Article 30(1) is applicable to universities established before the commencement of the Constitution". Additionally, the right-bearing group, defined as a minority at the Constitution’s commencement, cannot be altered for institutions that predate it.

Notably, the incorporation of an educational institution as a university does not inherently result in a surrender of its minority status. The judgement states that the "circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university" should be examined to determine if its minority character was relinquished.

For establishing a minority institution, specific criteria must be met. The founding must stem from minority ideation and be implemented by the minority community, primarily for its benefit. Additionally, the institution's administrative structure must "elucidate and affirm...the minority character of the educational institution".

The judgement of CJI Chandrachud overrules the perspective in S. Azeez Basha that an institution established through a statute cannot be considered a minority institution.

In summary, the Court resolves that "the question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgment".

The batch of cases will be presented to the regular bench for determining AMU's minority status and adjudicating the Allahabad High Court's appeal.

Justice Surya Kant (Partial Dissent)

Justice Surya Kant, in his judgement, concludes that there is no conflict between the seven-judge decision in Re: Kerala Education Bill, 9 1958 SCR 995 (Tap here) and the five-judge decision in S. Azeez Basha.

He emphasizes that the six-judge decision in Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, 1962 (3) SCR 837 (Tap here), which held that Article 30 rights are “absolute and unconditional,” is incorrect. This earlier interpretation has been effectively overruled by the judgement in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, and therefore, S. Azeez Basha does not suffer from any legal flaw for not following Sidhajbhai Sabhai.

Justice Kant also addresses the authority of smaller benches of the same court, clarifying that the two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools, W.P.(C) No. 54-57 of 1981 exceeded its jurisdiction by doubting the validity of the five-judge decision in S. Azeez Basha and referring it to a larger seven-judge bench. He states, "a two-judge bench has no authority whatsoever to doubt or disagree with a judgment of the larger bench".

Justice Kant goes further, modifying the part of S. Azeez Basha that interpreted Section 6 of the AMU Act, which he considers incorrect. Specifically, he revises S. Azeez Basha's statement that since AMU’s degrees are government-recognised, it could not be established by a private individual or body.

He also affirms that Article 30 protections apply to minority institutions established before the Constitution, noting that "Educational institutions, with reference to Article 30 include universities as well". Institutions seeking Article 30 protections must satisfy a “conjunctive test”—they must be established by a minority community and administered by the same community.

Finally, Justice Kant leaves the question of AMU’s minority status to be resolved by a regular bench, as it involves "a mixed question of facts and law".

Justice Dipankar Datta (Dissent View)

In his judgement, Justice Dipankar Datta concludes that AMU does not qualify as a minority institution and, therefore, is not entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. He states that AMU was neither established nor administered by a religious minority community, a requirement essential for minority institution status under Article 30(1).

Justice Datta firmly states, "AMU was neither established by any religious community, nor is it administered by a religious community which is regarded as a minority community; hence, AMU does not qualify as a minority institution".

He further rejects the appellants' arguments, stating they lack a historical, legal, factual, or logical basis. In accordance with Article 145(5) of the Constitution, Justice Datta opines that not only do the references not require an answer, but it should also be conclusively declared that AMU does not hold minority educational institution status. He asserts, "the appeals seeking minority status for it should fail", thereby closing any basis for AMU’s minority claim under the constitutional provision.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (Dissent View)

Firstly, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma notes a procedural error in how the matter was referred to a larger bench. According to Justice Sharma, a two-judge bench does not have the authority to directly refer a case to a larger bench without involving the Chief Justice of India. This violates judicial propriety and undermines the Chief Justice’s role as the "master of the roster".

Justice Sharma further clarifies the dual requirements under Article 30 that minority rights over educational institutions require both "establishment" and "administration" by the minority community. Merely founding an institution is insufficient; the minority must actively create and control it, including providing funding, determining policy, and exercising full administrative authority.

Justice Sharma provides specific criteria for establishing minority control, asserting that the minority must play an exclusive and predominant role in the institution’s creation. This includes overseeing matters like funding, faculty hiring, curriculum decisions, and day-to-day management. In other words, the decision-making authority must rest almost entirely with the minority community.

The institution’s purpose, Justice Sharma explains, should primarily serve the interests of the minority community. This entails not only its foundation but also sustained governance by the minority. The institution’s operations, policies, and objectives must reflect the minority community’s beliefs and interests, with the community retaining a significant role in its administration.

Justice Sharma interprets the landmark S. Azeez Basha case, explaining that while it does not prevent minorities from establishing universities, it points out the importance of legislative intent in determining an institution’s status. Thus, whether an institution can claim minority rights depends on both legislative purpose and statutory requirements.

Additionally, he asserts that when the government plays a significant role in an institution’s establishment, it cannot be said to have been predominantly "established" by a minority. This governmental involvement removes the institution from the minority’s direct purview.

Justice Sharma also stresses that Article 30 is intended to ensure equal treatment rather than to create minority-exclusive institutions. Minorities already integrate and contribute significantly to national institutions, and Article 30 does not envisage isolated “minority-only” spaces.

In conclusion, Justice Sharma finds that AMU does not qualify as a minority institution under Article 30, as it fails to meet the strict criteria of minority establishment and administration.

Case Details: Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors., 2024 INSC 856 [Tap here for Judgement]

(For more updates, tap to join us on Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn)