1. Challenge to the constitutionality of amendments to a university act — dispute over whether the institution was established by a religious minority under Article 30(1). (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 294
Supreme Court Of India
S. AZEEZ BASHA,mohammad YASEEN NURI,zulfiquarulla,m. TAJUDDIN QURASHI,mohd. IDRIS
Versus
Union of India
Decided On : October 20, 1967
The right of a minority to administer an educational institution under Article 30(1) is contingent upon the minority having established that institution. An institution created by a legislative act is established by the legislature, not the minority, regardless of the minority's role in its inception.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions - Interpretation of "establish and administer" - Whether a university created by a statute, based on a minority-founded college, is "established" by the minority - The words "establish and administer" must be read conjunctively; the right to administer is contingent upon the minority having established the institution (Paras 19, 22, 23, 26).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 26 - Rights of religious denominations to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes - The words "establish and maintain" must be read conjunctively; the right to maintain/administer arises only where the institution was established by the religious denomination (Para 30).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before law - Discrimination between different university statutes - Each university is a class by itself; the legislature has the right to provide different constitutions for different universities based on their specific requirements and needs (Para 34).
(D) Constitution of India - Article 31 - Deprivation of property - Property vested in a corporate body by statute - Once property is vested in a corporate body created by law, the original contributors or the community cannot claim individual or collective ownership or a right to administer such property under the Constitution (Para 36).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of amendment acts to a university's establishing statute, contending that the university was established by a religious minority and thus the right to administer it was protected under Article 30(1). The university had been brought into existence by a 1920 Act which dissolved previous minority-run societies and vested their assets in a new corporate body. The 1920 Act provided for government recognition of degrees and granted overriding powers to a government-appointed visitor and the government in council.
Findings of Court:
The university was established by the legislature through the 1920 Act, not by the minority community. A private body could not establish a university whose degrees were legally recognized by the government; such recognition required a statute. Therefore, the legislature brought the university into existence. Since the minority did not establish the university, they cannot claim a fundamental right to administer it under Article 30(1).
Issues: Whether the university was established by the religious minority and whether the amendment acts violated Article 30(1) or other fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, 29, and 31 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to administer an educational institution under Article 30(1) is available only to the minority that established it. An institution created by a legislative act is established by the legislature, regardless of the minority's role in funding or advocating for its creation. Furthermore, the existence of government-appointed authorities with overriding powers confirms that administration was not vested in the minority.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim the institution was established by a minority, granting administration rights under Article 30(1); Respondent contends the institution was established by statute via government action. (Para 1 , 2 , 18 )
3. The institution was created by legislation to ensure degree recognition and government control, meaning it was established by the legislature, not the religious minority. (Para 12 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. The right to administer an educational institution under Article 30(1) is available only to minorities that have established the institution. (Para 19 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed — amendment acts held constitutional and within legislative competence. (Para 37 )
6. Does Article 30(1) grant a minority the right to administer an educational institution they did not establish?
No. The words establish and administer must be read conjunctively. A religious minority has the right to administer an educational institution only if it has established that institution. (Para 19 )
7. What constitutes the establishment of a university when government recognition of degrees is a requirement?
If a university is brought into existence by legislation to ensure its degrees are recognized by the government—a power private bodies lack—it is established by the legislature, not the minority. (Para 22 , 23 , 26 )
8. Can a religious denomination claim a right to maintain an institution under Article 26(a) if it did not establish it?
No. The words establish and maintain must be read conjunctively; the right to maintain or administer an institution under Article 26(a) arises only if the denomination established it. (Para 30 )
9. Does Article 14 require all university acts to have identical administrative structures?
No. Each university is a class by itself. The legislature may provide different constitutions for different universities based on their specific requirements and needs. (Para 34 )
10. Does changing the composition of a university's governing body constitute deprivation of property for the community that contributed funds?
No. If property was voluntarily surrendered to a corporate body created by statute, the community no longer owns it; changes to the body's structure do not deprive the community. (Para 36 )
Judgment
K. N. WANCHOO, J.
( 1 ) THESE five writ petitions raise common questions and will be dealt with together. They attack the constitutionality of the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, No. LXII of 1851 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951-Act) and the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, No. XIX of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965-Act ). The principal attack is based on the provisions of Article 30 (1) which lays down that "all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice". The case of all the petitioners is that the Aligarh Muslim University (hereinafter referred to as the Aligarh University) was established by the Muslim minority and therefore the Muslim had the right to administer it and in so far as the Acts of 1951 and 1965 take away or abridge any part of that right they are ultra vires Article 30 1. Besides this principal attack, the two Acts are also subsidiarily attacked for violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 23, 26, 29 and 31 of the Constitution. It is unnecessary to set out the nature of the attack under these Articles for that will appear when we deal with the matter in detail later; suffice it to say that all the petitions do not make the attack under all these Articles, but the sum total of the subsidiary attack in all these petitions takes in its sweep all these six Articles.
( 2 ) THE petitions have been opposed on behalf of the onion of India and its main contention is that the Aligarh University was established in 1920 by the Aligarh Muslim University Act, No. XL of 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the 1920-Act) and that this establishment was not by the Muslim minority but by that Government of India by virtue of a statute namely the 1920-Act and therefore the Muslim minority could not claim any fundamental right to administer the Aligarh University under Article 30 (1 ). It was further contended that as the Aligarh University was established by the 1920-Act by the Government of India, Parliament had the right to amend that statute as it thought fit in the interest of education and the amendments made by the Acts of 1951 and 1965 were perfectly valid as there was no question of their taking away the right of the Muslim minority to administer the Aligarh University for the minority not having established the university could not claim the right to administer it. It was further contended that the fact that under the provisions of the 1920-Act, the Court of the Aligarh University was to be composed entirely of Muslims did not give any right to the Muslim community as such to administer the university which had been administered by the authorities established by the 1920. Act. It was further contended that the attack based on the six Articles of the Constitution to which we have referred already had no substance and did not in any manner make the Acts of 1951 and 1965 unconstitutional. We do not think it necessary at this stage to give in detail the reply of the Government of India on these points and shall refer to it as and when the occasion arises.
( 3 ) IT is necessary to refer to the history previous to the establishment of the Aligarh University in 1920 in order to understand the contentions raised on either side. It appears that as far back as 1870 Sir Syed Ahmad Khan thought that the backwardness of the Muslim community was due to their neglect of modern education. He therefore conceived the idea of imparting liberal education to Muslims in literature and science while at the same time instruction was to be given in Muslim religion and traditions also. With this object in mind, he organised a Committee to devise ways and means for educational regeneration of Muslims and in May 1872 a society called the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College Fund Committee was started for collecting subscriptions to realise the goal that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had conceived. In
