Aligarh Muslim University through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal (2024 (SC) 869 )

Court-  Supreme Court of India

Bench- Chief Justice D.Y.Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice B.V. Nagarthna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Date- November 8, 2024

Relevant provisions and statutes

1. Article 30(1), Constitution of India[1] [2]- This is among the most crucial article of Constitution of India since, it gives the right to minorities to have a right of developing any educational institution of their demands and to prerogative it. The minorities have a source to rely upon when this article offers the means to have an educational right in India.
2. Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920- It is a document following which the Aligarh Muslim University ( AMU ) was established as a Central University. Thus it alone does not prevent the university to claim the minority status as provided in article 30 (1) of the constitution..
3. Article 29, constitution of India- This article safeguards the interest of the Minorities whereby they are promised the right to preserve their own distinct languages/ scripts or culture.
4. Previous case decision– In this case it has applied the past case decision of S. Azeez Basha verses union of India 1967 [1] in which it was noted that AMU was not a minority institution since it was founded under an act of parliament.

Brief facts of the case

Aligarh Muslim University is an extension of Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College that was started by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the year 1875. The primary objective of this institution was to foster modernity in the education of the brooming Muslims in the Indian society. Previously these institutions were not granted the right of setting and running any one of the educational institution they wish. The status however of University became available to the institution with Aligarh Muslim University act of 1920 in 1920, which only offered its statutory framework and assisted in attaining the national recognition. The issue over whether the AMU could qualify as a minority institution of education or not was however doubtful on multiple occasions. The Supreme Court in S. Aziz Basha vs Union of India Pronounce towards the end of 1967 that AMU could not profess minority level since it was made by statute, however not by the Muslim community itself. The decision faced a great deal of criticism due to the use of formalistic approach to the interpretation of the article 30(1). However, disregarding the historical background of the Amu, the Parliament of India has over decades tried to replenish minority character to the university by the amendments in the Legislature, which was also called into question. The constitutional issue under consideration being so important and with the differences in interpretations regardless had to be determined by a proper means best able with the issue at hand which was directly the seven judge constitution bench.

Issues related to the case

1. The educational institution that has been formed by a statute can assert a status of minor under the article 30 (1) of the constitution of India.
2. What is the legal parameter and test to understand whether the institution can be designated to qualify as minority educational institution?
3. Whether the previous Supreme Court of India Judgement of S. Azeez Basha v. Was the decision of the case of Union of India ( 1967 ) that deprived the minority status to the Aligarh Muslim University right?
4. What was put into consideration when deciding on whether the institution was a minority or not.
5. Can the rights of the minority population to form and manage the educational establishments be lost due to the regulation of the state and statutory control of the educational institution?
6. Is it that the institution, simply because it is created by a statutes denies the minority status, whatever is its history and the purposes which it originally served.

Judgement

This court made its ruling of 8 November 2024 in Aligarh Muslim University via its Registrar, Faizan Mustafa v. By a majority of 4:3 through a 7-Judge Constitution Bench, Naresh Agarwal. Major issues that were resolved by the Court were the status of minority of the Aligarh Muslim University that had long contented and the validity of the ruling in the 1967 case of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India. Nonetheless, the Court did not have an ultimate ruling regarding whether Aligarh Muslim University is a minority institution. It rather established the contrary principles of finding minority status and delegated the issue to a small bench of factual study. The ruling took a liberal and purposive interpretation of minority rights with the ground that reasonable State regulation was permissible.

Ratio decidendi ( reason behind the decision )

1. It was determined by the Supreme Court that the minority status of an educational institution under Article 30(1) depends on the fact that is the entity actually created the institution and the purpose behind its creation, and not of the legal form in which the institution is incorporated.
2. The Court explained that, when a procedure is created by a statute or statutory incorporation, it was not necessarily the case that the creation of the institution was done by the State. A law can only be used to offer statutory recognition, form, or organization to an institution that already exists.
3. The logic of reasoning applied in the Court was dismissed. Union of India insofar as it accepted the statutory establishment as definitive evidence against minority status, considering such a policy to be too technical in nature and were contrary to the constitutional doctrine.
4. It was underscored that Article 30(1) should be read purposively, in the light of its aim that is to protect the minority groups in society against losing control of institutions that were established to cater to their educational and cultural needs.
5. The Court also asserted that the regulation, funding or the administrative control of the State does not, in and of itself, erase minority character as long as the regulation does not eliminate the main right of the minority group to manage the institution.
6. The appropriate test adopted by the Court is substantive test; that is, it involves scrutiny of the historical genesis, intent of foundation and involvement of the minority community but not a narrow test that encompasses an examination of statutory genesis.

Obiter Dicta

1. Minority Rights Liberal Interpretation –

The Court found that the minority rights under Article 30(1) made up fundamental constitutional rights, but not beneficial State offerings. They should therefore be interpreted liberally and purposively such that minority groups can be able to protect their educational and cultural identities.

2. State Regulation vs. minority autonomy –

The Court made it very clear that when State regulation seems to be reasonable directed to the maintenance of academic standards, it is found to be permissible. However, the regulation should not interfere with the fundamental right of minorities to manage their institutions because over-regulation would be against Article 30(1).

3. Dynamic Constitutional Interpretation –

The Court stressed that the Constitution is not a dead document, and its interpretation is required to change with changing social and historical circumstances. The constitutional guarantees should not be undermined by thoughtless observance of the obsolete precedents.

Even though these observations do not bind the law, they provide solid advice to the adjudication in the future related to minority institutions.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling in the case S. Azeez Basha v. in part, in a vote of 4 to 3 persons. Union of India (1967). The Court upheld that an educational institution is not necessarily ineligible to claim minority status because it is incorporated or directed by a statute and made it clear that just being statutorily incorporated does not qualify as final evidence that the institution was in fact created or governed by the State.  The Court established novel constitutional principles to establish the question of whether an institution is minority educational institution in reference to Article 30(1). It believed that the right way is to investigate the factors that created it like the role of the minority community in the creation of the institution, the reason why it was created, and not just on how it was created as a law.  The Supreme Court, however, did not make a final decision whether Aligarh Muslim university is a minority institution. Instead, it abided the issue to a lesser bench in order to subject the newly laid principles to the facts of AMU and give the factual determination of whether AMU was a minority or not to be made at another time. Practically the ruling enhanced the rights of minorities in educational matters, clarified a historical precedent, and provided that technical statutory formalism may not prevail over constitutional safeguards, yet they at least stayed the eventual rulings on the stature of AMU.

References-