ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS. V. NARESH AGARWAL & ORS.

Mustafa Khan

Integral University 

A) ABSTRACT

Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has been at the centre of the controversy over the equilibrium between minority rights and other constitutional ideals for quite some time now. The roots of this legal conundrum are embedded in the historical, legislative, and judicial evolution surrounding its inception and governance. Fundamentally, the issue revolves around Article 30 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees to the minorities the rights to set up and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Aligarh Muslim University minority status case has involved Articles 29, 30, 14, and 15 and a number of landmark judicial decisions such as the S Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968) and later cases.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:

Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors.

ii) Case Number:

Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006

iii) Judgement Date:

8th Nov. 2024

iv) Court:

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:

Dr. DY Chandrachud Ex CJ, Sanjiv Khanna CJ, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ...

vi) Author:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, EX CJI

vii) Citation:

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3213...

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 30, Article 30 (1), Article 28 (1) (3), (2),Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), Article 26, of the Constitution of India....

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:

S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 321...

Introduction

On November 8, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal & Ors, overruled the five-judge bench decision in Azeez Basha v Union of India which had held that enactment by a legislative statute will automatically lead to the extinguishment of minority character of an institution, if the context about the minority community surrounding the creation of the institution and its management are clearly established to stem from a strong advocacy for the interest of the minority community. The majority also laid down specific criteria and indices to determine the minority character of an institution. 

In this analysis, I engage with the majority opinion of Chief Justice Chandrachud in relation to the interpretation of Article 30(1) as well as the setting aided by the ratio of Azeez Basha. I consider the majority opinion in relation to two things: first, its authoritative interpretation, which I contest is built around purposive interpretation of Article 30, that is, the essential premise behind the incorporation of Articles 29 and 30 in the Constitution of India is to protect the educational and cultural rights of the minorities. This presupposes that were it in the case that Aligarh Muslim University served the purpose of improving educational attainment of Muslim minorities or preserves their cultural capital (which transcends their language rights as well), it is of no significance whether that institution, was set up through an Act of Parliament of the Central Government enacted for that purpose, or it was managed entirely by members of the concerned community exclusively. 

Second, the consideration of Azeez Basha’s case and the majority judgement’s annulment of Azeez Basha further suggests a broader understanding of the practical manifestation of Secularism in India in particular which does not preclude the intervention of the state in purely religious matters. Hence, state action (for example enactment through statute or other in exercising educational standard) alone cannot negate an extra ordinary discrimination protection specifically availed by the minority’s group. 

Facts

The college was founded in 1877 with the effort of Muslim reformist, Sir Syed Ahmad Kahn. He opened the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College in Aligarh to provide Western education alongside Islamic teachings. He aimed to change the perception of Islam, which was very fundamentalist in his time. The Mohammedan Anglo Oriental college began to provide Western education throughout its existence. In 1920 a British law was enacted that transformed MAO college into a university.

The 1951 Amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University Act absolved all religious obligations within the university system (there was a clause inserted that made it conditional upon the consent of all students if any religious instruction was to be made available). It prohibited the University from requiring any religious test for accepting a student or teacher or as criteria for the appointment of any officer in the administration of the University. Furthermore, it removed the requirement of all the members of its Supreme Governing Body whistle Court: being Muslims, in order to make sure that the University was able to continue to receive government funding which in part would have been otherwise banned by the Article 28(3). By the 1965 Act however, ‘Court’ was essentially relegated to an advisory role and the ‘Visitor’ (Lord Rector before Independence) was endowed with final authority over the Court. S. Azeez Basha and Others vs Union of India 1968; The court ruled that AMU is not a minority institution under Article 30(1) since an act of the legislature established it and not by the Muslims directly. The decision of Allahabad High Court (2006) declared unconstitutional the amendment to the AMU Act of 1981 which had proclaimed AMU as a minority institution.

Supreme Court Referral to a Larger Bench (2019) Three judge Bench allowed the matter to be referred to a Seven constitutional bench in order to provide authoritative decision of the issue . The Amendment of 1981 was unconstitutional since it amended the AMU Act to state that AMU is a minority institution. The court stated that such an amendment was in violation of the finding of the supreme court in the case of Azeez Basha. Supreme Court Referral to Larger Bench (2019) Due to the complicated nature of the matter, a three-judge Bench felt the scope of the issue was such that it required 7 judge constitutional bench for definitive conclusion.

2024 Supreme Court Verdict: The majority of the judges (4 out of 7 in opinion) of the bench reversed the Azeez Basha case and uphold the AMU’s minority status. 

Analysis

A constitutional bench of seven judges held by a majority of 4:3 that the Azeez Basha precedent should be overruled and endorsed the minority character of AMU. The judgment is notable in key respects. Revisiting Nature of Establishment The Bench opined that the part played by the Muslim community in the establishment, and the vision inspiring the MAO College, which thereafter became Aligarh Muslim University, was enough to treat it as a minority institution under Article 30. Balancing the Legislative and Judicial Conflicts The ruling endorsed the 1981 Amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, asserting that Parliament's objective of restoring AMU's minority status was in harmony with constitutional precepts. Standard for Determining Minority Colleges The court established a somewhat complex criterion, focusing on the historical, cultural, and functional characteristics of institutions asserting minority status. The Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 and its Amendments Over the years, amendments to the original act have evolved, as have the administrative framework governing the AMU.

Article 30 vis-à-vis AMU The 2024 ruling re-establishes that legislative instruments which transform institutions do not nullify the community from which they originated, as long as it can be shown that the community was involved in the establishment and administration. Article 14 and Reservations The judgment makes it clear that the reservations for Muslim students in AMU are in furtherance of a constitutional mandate of affirmative action and are not violative of Article 14.

Conclusion

What remains to be decided is the specific fact situation of AMU to be decided by a later regular bench, said the majority judgement. The judgment does, however, reflect an interpretation of Article 30 rooted within the broader constitutional framework of the judgment itself. It would be nice if this opinion were to guide what future challenges take place at the minority-run institutions.

Although the judgment does not reply to this plea formally, one of the integral arguments set out by the union against granting minority protection to AMU was that it was running out of the vaults of the State but denied the premises of affirmative action for SC, ST and other communities. The guarantee of educational autonomy to linguistic and religious minorities was also made intentionally after seeing how the proceedings in the Constituent Assembly unfolded as opposed to insisting that such communities be denied political reservations due to fears of separatism. But denial of the guarantee has to be against the Constitution's congenial intent in this behalf.

Reference:

1. Apoorva, [Amu Verdict] Minority Status Of Educational Institutions Not Affected By Statute, Date Of Establishment, Or Non-Minority Administration: Supreme Court Holds In 4:3 Verdict, SCC TIMES, (10 Dec 24, 10: 25 pm )           

2.  THE TIMES OF INDIA, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/aligarh-muslim-university-minority-status-supreme-court-hearing-live-updates-article-30-amu-allahabad-high-court/liveblog/115070804.cms, (10 Dec24; 10:00 PM)

3. LIVE LAW. IN, https://www.livelaw.in/articles/exploring-amu-minority-judgment-legal-analysis-issues-implications-275463, (11 Dec 24; 10:40 PM)

4. THE INDIAN EXPRESS, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/cji-chandrachud-amu-minority-institution-bench-rule-9658767/, (11 Dec 24; 10:40 PM)