Aligarh Muslim University vs Naresh Agarwal 2024 INSC 856 - Minority Status - Article 30 Constitution

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Azeez Basha upheld the amendments brought to Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920. The Court held that as the Muslim community did not establish AMU, it cannot claim a right to administer it under Article 30(1). Thus it was held that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute. In this case, seven judges bench (4:3) overruled it.

In this case, a two judges bench of the Supreme Court questioned the correctness of Azeez Basha (supra) and referred the matter to a Bench of seven Judges.

As per the Constitution Bench in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, it was held thus:

a. Decisions of this Court rendered by a Bench of larger strength are binding on Benches of a less or equal strength;

b. If a Bench of lower strength is doubtful about the correctness of a judgment delivered by a Bench of larger strength, it cannot disagree or dissent from the view taken by the larger Bench. In case of doubt, it can invite the attention of the Chief Justice of India to its opinion and request the Chief Justice to list the matter before a Bench, the strength of which is greater than that which delivered the judgment which has been doubted;

c. The correctness of the view taken by any Bench can only be doubted by a Bench of equal strength. The matter will then be placed for hearing before a Bench of greater strength;

d. There are two exceptions to the rules discussed above: i. The discretion of the Chief Justice is not bound by the rules. As the master of the roster, the Chief Justice may list any case before any Bench of any strength; ii. Despite the rules discussed above, if a particular case has come up for hearing before a Bench of larger strength and that Bench is of the opinion that the judgment of the Bench of lower strength requires reconsideration or correction, or is otherwise doubtful of its correctness, it may dispense with the need for a reference in the terms described above or an order of the Chief Justice and hear the matter for reasons given by it.

In this case, the UoI contended that the two judges bench in Anjuman could not have referred the correctness of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Azeez Basha directly to a Bench of seven Judges. It was suggested that the two-Judge Bench ought to have referred the matter to a Bench of equal strength to the decision the correctness of which is doubted, that is, a Bench of five Judges.

However, the CJI, speaking for the majority, observed that, in Anjuman, the two-Judge Bench requested that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justice of India for being heard by a Bench of seven Judges. This falls within the permissible limits laid down in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, the Court said.

Article 30 consists of three clauses. Clause (1) states that all minorities whether based on religion or language, shall have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Clause (1)(a) deals with the provision for compulsory acquisition of any property for an educational institution established and administered by a minority. We are not concerned per se with the said clause. Clause (2) of Article 30 provides that the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether based on religion or language.

The purpose of Article 30(1) is to ensure that the State does not discriminate against religious and linguistic minorities which seek to establish and administer educational institutions (“the nondiscrimination” purpose); and b. The purpose of Article 30(1) is also to guarantee a ‘special right’ to religious and linguistic minorities that have established educational institutions. This special right is the guarantee of limited State regulation in the administration of the institution. The State must grant the minority institution sufficient autonomy to enable it to protect the essentials of its minority character. The regulation of the State must be relevant to the purpose of granting recognition or aid, as the case may be. This special or additional protection is guaranteed to ensure the protection of the cultural fabric of religious and linguistic minorities. (Para 65)

Article 30(1) cannot extend to a situation where the minority community which establishes an educational institution has no intention to administer it. A religious or linguistic community may establish an educational institution and yet not administer it. This is evident from Article 28(2) of the Constitution which states that Article 28(1) will not apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but was established under an endowment or a trust which require religious instruction to be imparted. It is quite possible that a member or a group belonging to the minority community wishes to establish an institution but intends to accept greater State regulation and lesser autonomy for the community. In that case, putting a ‘minority’ tag on such an educational institution merely because it has been established by a person or a group belonging to a religious or linguistic minority would not be permissible under Article 30(1). An educational institution established by a minority, whether linguistic or religious, can give up their right to claim the benefit under clause (1) of Article 30. The right can be given up consciously by waiver. This may occur where administration has been consciously and willingly entrusted to the State. Therefore, to determine whether an educational institution is a minority educational institution, a formalistic test such as to whether it was established by a person or group belonging to a religious or linguistic minority is not sufficient. The tests adopted must elucidate the purpose and intent of establishing an educational institution for the minority. Both the establishment and the administration by the minority must be fulfilled cumulatively for that. (Para 72)

A distinction between educational institutions established before and after the commencement of the Constitution cannot be made for the purposes of Article 30(1). Article 30 will stand diluted and weakened if it is to only apply prospectively to institutions established after the commencement of the Constitution. The protection and guarantee, if made applicable to only institutions established after the commencement of the Constitution, would debase and defile the object and purpose of the provision. (Para 83)

Thus, educational institutions established by religious and linguistic minorities before the commencement of the Constitution will also receive the special protection guaranteed by Article 30(1): the right to administration without the infringement of their minority character. (Para 85)

Article 372 read with Article 13(1) stipulates that laws which pre-date the Constitution are unconstitutional if they contravene the fundamental rights.76 The provisions do not stipulate that laws which pre-date the Constitution cannot receive the additional protection which the fundamental rights offer.

The incorporation of the University would not ipso facto lead to surrendering of the minority character of the institution. The circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university must be viewed to identify if the minority character of the institution was surrendered upon the conversion. The Court may on a holistic reading of the statutory provisions relating to the administrative set-up of the educational institution deduce if the minority character or the purpose of establishment was relinquished upon incorporation. (para 160)

i. The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community; second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for the implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community; and ii. The administrative-set up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (I) the minority character of the educational institution; and (II) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community. (Para 16)

No. The Court (4:3) only overviewed view taken in Azeez Basha that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled. Now the question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution will have to be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgment. For this purpose, this case will have to be placed before the regular bench for deciding whether AMU is a minority educational institution. (Para 161)