1. Dispute over minority status of a university established by statute — Challenge to prior judgment holding statutory incorporation precludes minority status under Article 30(1). (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 66 , 109 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1010
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Aligarh Muslim University – Appellant
Versus
Naresh Agarwal & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006
WITH
Aligarh Muslim University – Appellant
Versus
Anuj Gupta & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2321 of 2006
WITH
Aligarh Muslim University – Appellant
Versus
Vivek Kasana & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2320 of 2006
WITH
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Malay Shukla & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2318 of 2006
WITH
Syed Abrar Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Aligarh Muslim University & Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32490 of 2015
WITH
Ashraf Mateen & Others – Appellants
Versus
Aligarh Muslim University & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 272 of 2016
WITH
Aligarh Muslim University Old Boys’ Alumni Association – Appellant
Versus
Naresh Aggarwal & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2861 of 2006
WITH
Haji Muqeet Ali Qureshi – Appellant
Versus
Malay Shukla & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2316 of 2006
WITH
Aligarh Muslim University – Appellant
Versus
Malay Shukla & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2319 of 2006
WITH
Aligarh Muslim University – Appellant
Versus
Manvendra Singh & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2006
WITH
Anoop Prabhakar & Others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Transfer Case (C) No. 46 of 2023
Decided On : 08-11-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Bahar. U. Barqui, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Ms. Aparjita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Ali Safeer Farooqi, Adv. 1 Ms. Rupali Samuels, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Mr. Z. K. Faizan, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Taiyub Khan, Adv. Mr. Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Adv. Mr. Mansoor Alir, Adv. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. N Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mrs. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Debadutta Kanungo, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Govind Jee, AOR Mr. Omanakuttan K K, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Rambha Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sanchita Ain, AOR Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Shadab Azhar, Adv. By Courts Motion
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. K.M. Natraraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. 2 Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Mr. Apporv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. VVV Pattabhiram, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Subodh Patil, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Pashupati Razdan, Adv. Mr. Vikas Chandra Shukla, Adv. Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Sanskriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samanatray, Adv. Mr. Aditiya Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv. Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Baijnath Patel, Adv. Ms. Sneh Lata Mishra, Adv. Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Narayan Dev Prashar, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Mr. Rishi Tutu, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Harnirmal Singh, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. AdvAdv. Shuchi Singh, AOR Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Sindoora V.N.L, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Rajan Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Mishra, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Nath, Adv. Mr. Shespal Sai, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Nisarg Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gobind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Haridas, Adv. Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Adv. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Anjuman Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Imran, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Mansoor Ali, Adv. Mrs. Rubina Javed, Adv. Mrs. Seema Khan, Adv. Mr. Tanveer Khan, Adv. Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali, Adv. Mrs. Azra Rehman, Adv. Mrs. Sommya Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Ahmed Zargham, Adv. Mr. Saif Naseem, Adv. Mr. Md. Sarfaraz, Adv. M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Saif Zia, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Isha Singh, Adv. Ms. Snehil Sonam, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kanwa, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. V. Sai Shashank, Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Sindhoora Vnl, Adv. Mr. Mohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Mr. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jamil Husain, Adv. Mr. Mohd Noorullah, Adv. Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Tashriq Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Attarup Bannerjee, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Abu Sohel, Adv. Mr. Ankur Parihar, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tandon, Adv. Mr. Avnish Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyans Raniwala, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Mr. Md Tasnimul Hassan, Adv. Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. Mr. Anagh Misra, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Md Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Lamba, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Tanvir Zaki, Adv. Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Bahar. U. Barqui, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Ms. Aparjita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Ali Safeer Farooqi, Adv. 1 Ms. Rupali Samuels, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Adv. Mr. Z. K. Faizan, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Taiyub Khan, Adv. Mr. Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Adv. Mr. Mansoor Alir, Adv. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. N Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mrs. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Debadutta Kanungo, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Govind Jee, AOR Mr. Omanakuttan K K, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Rambha Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sanchita Ain, AOR Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Aman Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Shadab Azhar, Adv. By Courts Motion
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. K.M. Natraraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. 2 Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Mr. Apporv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Aastha Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. VVV Pattabhiram, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Subodh Patil, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Pashupati Razdan, Adv. Mr. Vikas Chandra Shukla, Adv. Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Sanskriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samanatray, Adv. Mr. Aditiya Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv. Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Baijnath Patel, Adv. Ms. Sneh Lata Mishra, Adv. Ms. Himadri Haksar, Adv. Mr. Narayan Dev Prashar, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Mr. Rishi Tutu, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Harnirmal Singh, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. AdvAdv. Shuchi Singh, AOR Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Sindoora V.N.L, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Rajan Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Mishra, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Nath, Adv. Mr. Shespal Sai, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Nisarg Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gobind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Haridas, Adv. Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Adv. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Anjuman Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ranjana Singh, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Imran, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Mansoor Ali, Adv. Mrs. Rubina Javed, Adv. Mrs. Seema Khan, Adv. Mr. Tanveer Khan, Adv. Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali, Adv. Mrs. Azra Rehman, Adv. Mrs. Sommya Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Ahmed Zargham, Adv. Mr. Saif Naseem, Adv. Mr. Md. Sarfaraz, Adv. M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Saif Zia, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Prakash, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Isha Singh, Adv. Ms. Snehil Sonam, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kanwa, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Adv. Mr. V. Sai Shashank, Adv. Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Sindhoora Vnl, Adv. Mr. Mohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Bundela, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Astha Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Mr. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jamil Husain, Adv. Mr. Mohd Noorullah, Adv. Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Tashriq Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Attarup Bannerjee, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Abu Sohel, Adv. Mr. Ankur Parihar, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tandon, Adv. Mr. Avnish Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyans Raniwala, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Palav Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Mr. Md Tasnimul Hassan, Adv. Mr. Zahid Ali, Adv. Mr. Anagh Misra, Adv. Mr. Suvidh Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Md Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Lamba, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Tanvir Zaki, Adv. Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Adv.
Article 30(1) requires a conjunctive test of establishment and administration. Statutory incorporation of a university does not automatically strip its minority character; courts must examine the 'real positive indicia' of ideation, purpose, and implementation to determine if the minority community established the institution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions - Article 29(1) & (2) - Protection of interests of minorities - Article 19(1)(g) - Freedom of trade, commerce, and profession - Article 26 - Right to manage religious affairs - The right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is both an anti-discrimination provision and a special rights provision granting limited State regulation in administration (Paras 65, 160) - The words 'establish' and 'administer' must be read conjunctively, meaning the right to administer is contingent upon the establishment of the institution by the minority (Paras 66, 67, 132) - Incorporation of a university by a statute does not ipso facto lead to the surrender of its minority character (Para 96) - The determination of 'establishment' requires a holistic analysis of ideation, purpose, and implementation (Paras 135-137).
(B) Judicial Propriety - Reference to Larger Bench - A bench of lesser strength cannot directly refer a matter to a bench of significantly larger strength in violation of established norms of judicial discipline and the principle of stare decisis (Paras 37-39, 92-97).
(C) Minority Status of Universities - Statutory requirements for the incorporation of universities to grant recognized degrees do not preclude the possibility of such institutions being established by a minority community (Paras 95, 107) - The 'real positive indicia' for establishment include tracing the origin of the idea, the purpose for which it was founded, and the steps taken toward implementation (Paras 135-137).
Facts of the case:
This matter arose from a reference to a seven-judge bench to determine the correctness of a previous decision which had held that a university established by a statute was not a minority institution. The case involves the interpretation of Article 30(1) and the impact of the University Grants Commission Act and the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act on the minority status of universities established prior to the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Article 30(1) ensures substantive equality for minorities. It ruled that while a university must be incorporated by statute to confer recognized degrees, this legal formality does not negate the fact of its establishment by a minority. The court established that the minority character is determined by examining whether the minority community played the leading role in the institution's inception, funding, and operationalization.
Issues: The main issues were whether the terms 'establish' and 'administer' in Article 30(1) are conjunctive or disjunctive, what the specific indicia are for recognizing a minority educational institution, and whether statutory incorporation of a university precludes it from being a minority institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the right to administer is a consequence of establishment. To determine if a minority established an institution, courts must look beyond the statutory veneer to the 'real positive indicia': (i) ideation (the brain behind the establishment), (ii) purpose (predominantly for the benefit of the minority), and (iii) implementation (leading role in resources and infrastructure). Statutory incorporation is a legal requirement for degree recognition and not the sole determinative factor of establishment.
Result: Reference answered; principles for determining minority status laid down; factual determination regarding the specific institution left to a regular bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether 'establish' and 'administer' are conjunctive or disjunctive — Whether statutory incorporation by legislature prevents an institution from being a minority educational institution under Article 30(1). (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 80 , 81 )
3. Statutory incorporation is a legal requirement for universities and does not ipso facto surrender minority character; establishment involves a continuum of ideation, purpose, and implementation. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 65 , 71 , 72 , 94 , 95 , 98 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 141 )
4. Minority status under Article 30(1) depends on whether the minority community established the institution, determined by ideation, purpose, and implementation, regardless of statutory incorporation. (Para 160 , 161 )
5. Legal principles for determining minority status established — Factual determination of the university's status referred to a regular bench. (Para 161 , 162 )
6. Must a minority educational institution be both established and administered by a minority to secure protection under Article 30(1)?
Yes, the words establish and administer are read conjunctively. The right to administer is a consequence of establishment. However, the primary indicium for identifying a minority institution is its establishment by the minority community. (Para 67 , 71 , 72 , 160 )
7. Does the incorporation of a university through a legislative statute automatically strip it of its minority character under Article 30(1)?
No. Statutory incorporation is often a legal requirement for universities to grant recognized degrees. It does not ipso facto surrender minority status; the court must look at the promoters and founders. (Para 95 , 98 , 107 , 160 )
8. What are the criteria used to determine if a minority community established an educational institution?
Establishment is determined by a holistic analysis of three factors: ideation (the brain behind the idea), purpose (predominantly for the minority's benefit), and implementation (funding, land, and infrastructure). (Para 135 , 136 , 137 , 160 )
9. Does Article 30(1) apply to educational institutions established before the commencement of the Constitution?
Yes, the protection extends to pre-Constitution institutions. Minority status is determined based on the community's status at the time of the Constitution's commencement, relating back to the establishment. (Para 81 , 83 , 119 , 120 , 122 , 160 )
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
| Table of Contents | |
| A. | Background |
| B. | The reference and related events |
| C. | Submissions |
| D. | Issues |
| E. | Analysis |
| i. The preliminary objection by the Union of India | |
| ii. The scope of Article 30 | |
| a. The purpose of Article 30(1) | |
| b. The ‘special protection’ guaranteed by Article 30(1) | |
| iii. Indicia for a Minority Educational Institution | |
| iv. Applicability of Article 30 to a ‘University’ established before the commencement of the Constitution | |
| a. Article 30(1) applies to educational institutions established before the commencement of the Constitution | |
| b. There is no difference between ‘Universities’ and ‘colleges’ established before the commencement of the Constitution | |
| c. The minority character of the institution is not ipso facto surrendered upon the incorporation of the University | |
| d. ‘Minority’ as on the commencement of the Constitution | |
| v. Indicia for the ‘establishment’ of a minority educational institution | |
| vi. Impact of Entry 63 of List I on the minority status of educational institutions | |
| vii. The decision of this Court in Prof. Yashpal | |
| viii. The amendment of the NCMEI Act in 2010 | |
| ix. Registration under the Societies Registration Act | |
| F. | Conclusion |
1. Article 30 of the Constitution of India guarantees to religious and linguistic minorities, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain to the criteria to be fulfilled to qualify as a minority educational institution for the purpose of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.
A. Background
2. In 1977, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College was established in Aligarh. The college was a teaching institution affiliated to the Calcutta University at first and subsequently to the Allahabad University. The imperial legislature passed the Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920.1 [“AMU Act”] The enactment, as the preamble indicates, “established and incorporated” Aligarh Muslim University.2 [“AMU”] The AMU Act was amended by the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act 19513 [“1951 Amendment Act”] and Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act 1965.4 [“1965 Amendment Act”] The amendments related to the religious instructions of Muslim students5 [Section 8 was amended to stipulate that it would be unlawful for the University to adopt or impose any test of religious belief for admission or recruitment except where the religious test was made a condition for benefaction. The amended proviso to the provision stipulated that nothing in the Section shall be deemed to prevent the provision of religious instruction to those who consent to it. Section 9 which empowered the Court to mandate religious instruction for Muslim students was deleted by the amendment. Section 23(1), which provided that all members of the Court would be Muslims, was also deleted] and the administrative set-up of the university.6 [Section 23 of the AMU Act was amended to delete clauses (2) and (3). By this amendment, the powers of the Court were significantly reduced. The Court which was the supreme governing body of the University now only had the power to advise the Visitor or any other authority of the University on matters which may be referred to it for advice and exercise powers assigned to it by the Visitor. The powers of the Court were instead placed in the hands of the Executive Council. The composition of the Court (which was an all-Muslim body) was also amended. The process of constituting the Court and the Executive Council was also amended] Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution were instituted before this Court for challenging the constitutional validity of the 1951 Amendment Act and the 1965 Amendment Act. A Constitution Bench in the decision in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662 upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendm
