In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overruled the controversial 1967 judgment in the Azeez Basha case, which denied minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The ruling was delivered by a seven-judge bench with a narrow 4-3 majority, marking a significant shift in the legal status of the university.
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment on the question of granting minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. The decision comes from a seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. This much-anticipated ruling follows a deeply nuanced debate, with four separate opinions in the Bench, reflecting both majority and dissenting viewpoints.
Key Opinions of the Bench
Majority Opinion by CJI DY Chandrachud
In his opinion, CJI Chandrachud clarified that the right under Article 30 of the Constitution, which provides religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, is not absolute. It is subject to regulatory oversight as protected by Article 19(6), allowing reasonable restrictions.
The CJI addressed a core question: “What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution solely because it was established or administered by individuals belonging to a religious or linguistic minority?”
He held that Article 30 does not imply unrestricted authority for minority institutions. The Supreme Court, in its earlier Azeez Basha ruling, had understood that a minority institution must be both “established and administered” by the community. However, CJI Chandrachud suggested a shift from this narrow interpretation, explaining that an institution may be established by a minority group without necessarily being administered by it.
The Indicia Test for Minority Status
The CJI introduced a formalistic test, emphasizing that the intent of the institution, rather than strict legal criteria, should determine its minority status. He asserted that Article 30(1) should be interpreted in a way that respects its broader intent rather than a narrow reading of “establishment.” Institutions established before the commencement of the Constitution could also qualify under Article 30(1), provided they align with the intent of the article.
Evidence of Minority Intent
To establish an institution’s minority character, CJI Chandrachud noted, documentary evidence such as letters, communications, speeches, and other materials that highlight the struggles or objectives of the minority community could serve as proof. He clarified that minority status does not require minority administration of the institution; it suffices if the establishment itself fulfills the purpose of Article 30.
Furthermore, the CJI noted that the institution’s status at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, verified through office records, secondary sources, and memorandums, is crucial.
Dissents by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma
In contrast, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma expressed dissenting opinions, cautioning against any redefinition of criteria that might dilute the original intent of Article 30 protections. They emphasized that both establishment and administration by a minority community are vital in establishing an institution’s minority character.
Overruling of Azeez Basha Judgment
In a significant conclusion, CJI Chandrachud declared that the 1967 Azeez Basha judgment has been overruled. He ruled that the question of determining AMU’s minority status should be re-examined based on the principles and tests laid down in this decision.
The case now awaits further proceedings, with the CJI directing that a new Bench be constituted to assess AMU’s status and the correctness of the 2006 Allahabad High Court judgment that denied minority status to AMU.
