2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 11715
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA – Appellant
Versus
NARESH AGARWAL – Respondent
C.A. No.-002286-002286 - 2006
Advocates:
Petitioner's Advocate: T. V. S. RAGHAVENDRA SREYAS
Respondent's Advocate: R. C. KOHLI
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to establish and administer educational institutions to religious and linguistic minorities; this right is contingent upon the minority community establishing the institution, and the terms "establish" and "administer" must be read conjunctively.
Headnote:(A) Article 30 of the Constitution of India - Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Acts, 1951, 1965, 1981 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (amended 2010).
(B) Article 30 guarantees the right to establish and administer educational institutions to religious and linguistic minorities. The right to administer is contingent upon the establishment of the institution by the minority. The words "establish" and "administer" are to be read conjunctively. The State may regulate educational institutions, but such regulations must not infringe the minority character of the institution. (Paras 48, 66, 160)
(C) The criteria for determining whether an institution is a minority educational institution include the indicia of ideation, purpose, and implementation of the institution's establishment, as well as the affirmation of the institution's minority character in its administrative structure. (Paras 160, 135-140)
(D) The Court must consider the genesis of the institution to determine who established it. The institution must have been established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community. The administrative structure must reflect the minority character of the institution. (Paras 135-141)
Facts of the case:
The case concerns the minority status of a university established before the commencement of the Constitution. The university's establishment involved significant government involvement, raising questions about whether it was established by a minority community. The university later implemented a reservation policy, leading to legal challenges.
Findings of Court:
Azeez Basha (supra) is overruled to the extent that it holds that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute. The criteria for determining minority educational institution status are clarified. The question of whether the university in question is a minority educational institution is referred to a regular bench.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of Article 30, specifically the meaning of "establish" and "administer," and the criteria for determining minority educational institution status, particularly in the context of a university established before the Constitution's commencement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the meaning of "establish" and "administer" in Article 30, emphasizing the conjunctive reading of these terms. The court overruled the prior holding that statutory incorporation precludes minority status. The court established criteria for determining minority educational institution status, focusing on the institution's genesis, purpose, and administrative structure.
Result: Reference disposed of.
Table of Contents
1. What are the criteria for determining whether an educational institution qualifies as a minority educational institution under Article 30(1)?
Establishment by a linguistic or religious minority is the primary indicium. The institution must have been brought into existence by the minority community and must predominantly serve its benefit. Both establishment and administration must be fulfilled cumulatively, but establishment is the foundational requirement. (Para
69
,
72
,
124
,
135
,
136
,
137
,
138
,
141
,
142
,
173
)
2. Does statutory incorporation of a university by Parliament negate its minority character under Article 30(1)?
No. Compliance with legal requirements for incorporation does not amount to surrender of minority character. The Court must pierce the veil of the statute to identify if the institution was established by a minority for the benefit of the community. (Para
98
,
107
,
108
,
110
,
112
,
113
)
3. Does declaration of an institution as one of national importance exclude it from Article 30(1) protection?
No. The declaration of an institution as one of national importance does not amount to a change in its minority character. The qualities denoted by national and minority are not mutually exclusive, and a university may be both national and minority in character. (Para
148
)
4. What does establish mean in Article 30(1), and does the manner of incorporation affect the right?
Establish means to found or bring into existence. The guarantee is not dependent on the manner of legal compliance but on the persons who founded the institution. The Court must pierce the veil of the statute to identify the actual founders. (Para
95
,
110
,
165
,
173
)
5. Is proof that the minority administers the institution a precondition for minority status under Article 30(1)?
No. Administration is a consequence of establishment, not a precondition. It is not necessary to prove that administration vests with the minority to prove minority status. However, the minority must retain de jure and de facto control over administration. (Para
66
,
67
,
68
,
138
,
184
,
185
)
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Background ................................................................................................... 5 B. The reference and related events .............................................................. 10 C. Submissions ............................................................................................ 19 D. Issues ....................................................................................................... 33 E. Analysis ....................................................................................................... 36 i. The preliminary objection by the Union of India .................................. 36 ii. The scope of Article 30 ........................................................................... 39 a. The purpose of Article 30 (1)................................................................... 44 b. The ‘special protection’ guaranteed by Article 30 (1) .............................. 49 iii. Indicia for a Minority Educational Institution .................................... 55 iv. Applicability of Article 30 to a ‘University’ established before the commencement of the Constitution ............................................................. 64 a. Article 30 (1) applies to educational institutions established before the commencement of the Constitution .............................................................. 65 b. There is no difference between ‘Universities’ and ‘colleges’ established before the commencement of the Constitution ............................................. 69 c. The minority character of the institution is not ipso facto surrendered upon the incorporation of the University ................................................................ 77 d. ‘Minority’ as on the commencement of the Constitution ......................... 88 v. Indicia for the ‘establishment’ of a minority educational institution .. 91 vi. Impact of Entry 63 of List I on the minority status of educational institutions .................................................................................................... 103 vii. The decision of this Court in Prof. Yashpal ..................................... 107 viii. The amendment of the NCMEI Act in 2010 ...................................... 112 ix. Registration under the Societies Registration Act ............................. 114 F. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 115
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 The enactment, as the preamble indicates, “established and incorporated” Aligarh Muslim University2. The AMU Act was amended by the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act 19513 and Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act 19654. The amendments related to the religious instructions of Muslim students5 and the administrative set-up of the university6. Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution were instituted before this Court for challenging
1 “AMU Act”
2 “AMU”
3 “1951 Amendment Act” 4 “1965 Amendment Act”
5 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
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
