Minority status of AMU won’t cease due to statute, date of establishment or non-minority admin, says Supreme Court. AMU Minority Claim To Be Decided Based On Who Established It
“An educational institution established by any citizen can be regulated under Article 19(6). This court has maintained that right under Article 30 is not absolute. Regulation of minority educational institution is permitted under Article 19(6) provided it does not infringe the minority character of the institute,” the Court stated.
ANDALIB AKHTER
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, AMU’s claim for minority status became stronger as Supreme court today acknowledged that the institution was established and administered by Minorities and it was not established by an Act of Parliament.
However Minority character of AMU to be decided by three judges bench.
The verdict came in a batch of petitions concerning whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma overruled the 1968 judgment in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India in which it was held that minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had ceased because of parliamentary a law regulating the university.
“The view in Azeez Basha that minority character stops when statute comes into force is overruled. Whether AMU is minority or not will be decided as per this (today’s) judgment,” the Court held.
The Court said that in order to determine whether an institution is a minority institution, what needs to be looked at is who established the institution.
“The court has to consider the genesis of the institute and court must see who was the brain behind establishment of the institution. It has to be seen who got funds for the land and if minority community helped,” the Court said.
This administration by non-minority members will not take away the minority character of an institution.
“We have held that to be a minority institution, it only had to be established by the minority and not necessarily be administered by the minority members. Minority institutions may wish to emphasise secular education and for that minority members are not needed in administration,” the Bench ruled.
Important point of today ruling
Supreme Court today held that AMU was established and administered by Muslims.
Supreme Court overruled Azeez Basha judgement on 1967 which said AMU was established by Act of Parliament, not by Muslims.
Now the case will be decided on the basis today’s seven judge bench by a three judges bench.
AMU’s stand on minority character become strong as the court overruled Azeez Basha judgement of 1967.
However, AMU has not been declared a minority institution today. It will now be decided by a three judges bench in light of the today’s judgement.
“An educational institution established by any citizen can be regulated under Article 19(6). This court has maintained that right under Article 30 is not absolute. Regulation of minority educational institution is permitted under Article 19(6) provided it does not infringe the minority character of the institute,” the Court stated.
“Article 30 shall stand diluted if it applies to only institutes those which have been established after the Constitution came into force. Thus, educational institutions established by minority which were established before the constitution came into force, will also be governed by Article 30,” the Court made it clear.
In the case central government was represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with advocate Kanu Agrawal.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appeared for AMU.
Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal appeared for the AMU Old Boys’ (Alumni) Association.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat and advocates Hrishika jain, Aman Naqvi Natasha Maheshwari and Gautam Bhatia appeared for a petitioner, one Haji Muqeet Ali Qureshi.
Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, MR Shamshad and advocate Anas Tanwir also appeared for some of the petitioners.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for a private respondent (one Vivek Kasana) opposing the minority status of AMU.
Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Yatinder Singh, Guru Krishnakumar, Vinay Navare and Archana Pathak Dave appeared for other respondents.