Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal (2024)

Introduction 

This case addresses the fundamental question of when an educational institution qualifies as a minority institution entitled to constitutional protection under Article 30(1).  

• The case involved a challenge to the 1967 Supreme Court judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which held that Aligarh Muslim University was not a minority institution. The core issue was whether statutory incorporation strips an institution of its minority character and the proper criteria for determining minority institutional status. 

Facts 

• Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established the Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College (MAO) on 8 January 1877 in Aligarh as an educational institution for the Muslim community. 
• In 1920, the British Imperial Legislative Council enacted the Aligarh Muslim University Act, incorporating the college as a university with statutory recognition. 
• Article 30(1) came into force in 1950 with the Constitution, granting minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions. 
• In 1967, a five-judge Constitution Bench in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India ruled that AMU was not a minority institution because it was established by statute rather than being "established" and "administered" by the minority community as required by Article 30(1). 
• On 26 November 1981, a Two-Judge Bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools questioned the correctness of Azeez Basha and referred it to a Seven-Judge Bench. 
• Parliament enacted the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1981, defining the University as an institution "established by the Muslims of India" and tracing its origin to MAO College. 
• In 2005, the Allahabad High Court declared AMU's fifty-percent reservation policy for Muslim students unconstitutional, holding that AMU was not a minority institution even after the 1981 Amendment. 
• On 12 February 2019, a Three-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a Seven-Judge Bench, noting that the correctness of Azeez Basha remained unresolved. 
• The petitioners challenged the denial of minority status and sought constitutional protection under Article 30(1) for AMU's administrative autonomy and reservation policies. 

Issues 

• Whether an educational institution loses its minority status merely because it is created or incorporated by statute. 
• What are the correct criteria for determining when an institution qualifies as a minority educational institution under Article 30(1). 
• Whether the Supreme Court's 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha correctly interpreted the law regarding minority institutions. 
• Whether institutions established before the Constitution came into force in 1950 can claim minority protection under Article 30(1). 
• Whether the referral process in the Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya case was legally valid. 

Court's Observations 

Validity of Reference Process: 

• The majority (4 judges) upheld the Two-Judge Bench's decision in Rahmaniya to question Azeez Basha and refer it to a larger bench, affirming the Chief Justice's discretionary administrative authority to assign cases. 
• The dissenting judges (3 judges) held that the referral was legally flawed, arguing that a Division Bench lacked authority to question a Constitution Bench decision and that the manner of referral breached judicial propriety. 

Statutory Incorporation Does Not Negate Minority Status: 

• The Court held that an educational institution does not lose its minority status merely because it is created by statute, overturning the key reasoning in Azeez Basha. 
• The majority clarified the distinction between "incorporation" (legal existence) and "establishment" (founding), emphasizing that minority status depends on who founded the institution, not the legal process of incorporation. 
• The Court ruled that if an institution has independent legal existence, statutory recognition merely acknowledges an existing institution rather than establishing it. 

Scope of Article 30(1) Protection: 

• The Court held that Article 30(1) protects institutions established both before and after the Constitution's adoption in 1950, extending constitutional protection to pre-independence minority institutions. 
• The majority emphasized that examination of an institution's founding should be based on the situation at the time of the Constitution's adoption, not before independence. 

Incorrect Legal Precedent in Azeez Basha: 

• The majority ruled that Azeez Basha incorrectly relied on The Durgah Committee case, which dealt with religious property rights under Article 26, not educational rights under Article 30(1). 
• The Court found that no parallel could be drawn between Articles 26 and 30(1) as they protect different types of rights with different scopes and nature. 

Criteria for Minority Educational Institution Status: 

• The Court established that minority status requires the institution to predominantly benefit the minority community, not exclusively serve it. 
• Courts must examine the origin of the institution, including who sought its establishment, the founding purpose, funding sources, land acquisition, and construction—all of which should primarily involve the minority community. 
• The Court ruled that minority members need not manage the institution, but the administration should affirm the institution's minority purpose and character. 
• National importance status does not negate minority character, as "national" and "minority" are not mutually exclusive concepts. 

AMU's Specific Status: 

• The majority held that AMU's specific minority status should be decided by a regular bench, having established the general criteria for minority institutions. 
• Justice Datta dissented, arguing that the Court should resolve AMU's status immediately and concluded that AMU was established by imperial legislature, not the Muslim community. 

Proportionality and Reasonableness: 

• The Court emphasized that any restrictions on minority educational institutions must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate under constitutional tests. 

Constitutional Interpretation: 

• The Court adopted a liberal interpretation of Article 30(1), emphasizing the constitutional framers' intent to protect minority educational institutions as essential for cultural and educational advancement. 
• The judgment stressed that constitutional rights must be interpreted to give effect to their underlying purpose rather than being restricted through technicalities.