In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned its 1967 judgment from the S. Azeez Basha vs Union of India case, which previously held that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) could not be classified as a minority institution. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, issued a 118-page verdict detailing the Court’s new perspective on minority status for educational institutions.
The majority judgment clarifies that the legal status of an educational institution, even if established under a statutory framework, does not preclude it from being considered a minority institution, provided it was established by a religious or linguistic minority. This decision marks a significant shift from the 1967 ruling, which classified AMU as a Central university with no minority status.
The Court outlined that Article 30(1) of the Constitution guarantees educational rights to religious or linguistic minorities who establish institutions for their communities. This autonomy includes greater control over administration, which is recognized as a “special right” under Article 30(1). However, for an institution to qualify as a minority institution, the community must demonstrate that it was directly involved in establishing the institution for its cultural and educational purposes.
Furthermore, Justice Chandrachud clarified that the provisions of Article 30(1) apply specifically to universities established prior to the enactment of the Constitution. The judgment provided a set of guiding principles to determine whether a minority community can be deemed to have established an educational institution.
The Bench referred the matter back to a regular judicial bench for further proceedings, specifically to address appeals against a 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling that nullified AMU’s minority status under a 1981 law. The Supreme Court’s current judgment also affirmed the legality of a 1981 reference by a two-judge bench, which had requested a review of the 1967 decision before a larger bench.
Dissenting opinions were voiced by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Kant argued against the 1981 reference, questioning its validity, while Justice Datta’s separate opinion reiterated that AMU should not be considered a minority institution. Justice Kant and Justice Datta also expressed concerns over the authority of lower benches making references for reconsideration of prior rulings.
This significant judgment revisits the interpretation of Articles 29(2) and 30(1) and is set to impact the minority status framework for educational institutions across India, particularly those established by religious and linguistic communities.
Leave a comment