SC overrules 1967 verdict against AMU’s minority tag

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated11/11/2024

An educational institution established by a minority community will not lose its identity once it is recognised through a statute, the Supreme Court declared on Friday in a 4:3 majority judgment by a seven-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.

The Supreme Court of India, in a 4:3 majority judgment, declared that educational institutions founded by minority communities do not lose their minority identity even after being recognized by statute.
The decision was given by a seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, in response to petitions advocating for minority status for Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

Institutional Identity: Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that institutions established by minority communities qualify as minority institutions. However, communities must prove their intention to preserve their cultural identity through the institution.
Dissenting Views: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma dissented with separate opinions, arguing differing perspectives on the institution’s minority status.

Azeez Basha Case (1967): A prior Supreme Court judgment held that AMU, as a central university, could not claim minority status. This ruling restricted minority rights to only those institutions directly established by minority communities.
Legislative and Judicial Developments: Parliament restored AMU’s minority status in 1981 through an amendment, but the Allahabad High Court struck down this status in 2006. The Supreme Court referred the issue to a seven-judge bench in 2019 due to potential implications on institutions like St. Stephen’s College and Christian Medical College.

Purpose Beyond Religious Instruction: Article 30(1) protects both religious and secular education rights for minorities, allowing them to establish and administer institutions to promote their cultural values.
Dual Nature of Rights: The article serves both anti-discriminatory and ‘special rights’ functions, offering autonomy to minorities while prohibiting discrimination in establishing and managing institutions.

Proof of Purpose: The court noted that minority communities must show their intent to preserve cultural identity for Article 30(1) protection. Evidence can include founding documents, historical records, and community contributions.
Administrative Flexibility: Minority institutions retain their character even if managed by individuals from other communities, especially in professional fields where expertise may be required.