ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs NARESH AGARWAL, 2024
Case Title and Citation: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA V. NARESH AGARWAL 2024 INSC 856 (8 November 2024)
Factual Background
The case originates from the establishment of the Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College (MAO) by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan on January 8, 1877. This institution was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) by an Act passed by the British Imperial Legislative Council in 1920. Following the adoption of the Constitution, a challenge was brought against amendments made to the AMU Act in 1951 and 1965. In 1967, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India that AMU was not a minority institution because it was established by a statute, and thus did not satisfy the requirement of being “established and administered” by a minority community under Article 30(1). In 2005, the Allahabad High Court relied upon Azeez Basha to declare AMU’s reservation policy for Muslim students in postgraduate medical courses unconstitutional. The appeal against this ruling eventually led a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, recognizing that the correctness of Azeez Basha had remained unresolved since 1981, to refer the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative constitutional determination.
Issue(s)
- Whether an educational institution, solely by deriving its legal character through a statute, is precluded from qualifying for the protection afforded to minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
- What foundational criteria must be satisfied for an institution to be recognized as a minority educational institution entitled to rights under Article 30(1).
- Whether the Supreme Court’s 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which denied AMU minority status, correctly interpreted the requirements of Article 30(1).
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, decided the matter by a 4:3 majority, and overruled the judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India. The majority held that the view that minority status is lost merely because an institution is created by a statute is incorrect. The Court formulated the essential criteria required for an educational institution to be categorized as a minority institution under Article 30(1). The final factual determination of whether AMU itself fulfills these new criteria was deferred and directed to be decided by a regular bench.
Reason for the decision
The majority opinion primarily focused on re-establishing the fundamental scope of Article 30(1) and correcting the established precedent:
- Statutory Establishment does not negate Minority Status: The Court held that relying on a statute for incorporation does not strip an institution of its minority character. The majority distinguished “incorporation” (the legal process of existence) from “establishment” (the founding act), asserting that the institution’s true status depends on the original efforts and group responsible for its creation, irrespective of the legal method employed to formalize it.
- Conjunctive Reading of Rights: The terms “establish” and “administer” in Article 30(1) must be read conjunctively. The right to administer is a consequence of having established the institution.
- Criteria for Establishment (The Real Indicia): To prove establishment by a minority, courts must analyze the institution’s genesis by identifying the following indicia:
- Ideation: Identifying the “brain” or promoters of the institution through documents, resolutions, and letters.
- Purpose: The institution must have been founded predominantly to benefit the minority community.
- Implementation: The minority community must have demonstrably taken concrete steps toward implementation, such as providing funds, acquiring land, and securing governmental approvals.
- Azeez Basha‘s Error: The earlier Azeez Basha judgment incorrectly relied upon the ratio from Durgah Committee (a case concerning Article 26 rights related to religious property administration), misapplying its findings to the distinct educational rights guaranteed under Article 30(1).
- Administration Requirement: The administrative setup must also affirm the institution’s minority character and purpose. The administration need not be exclusively minority-based, but the functional, executive, and policy control must vest with the minority community (de jure and de facto control).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court definitively established that obtaining legal status via a legislative enactment does not automatically negate an educational institution’s claim to minority status under Article 30(1). By laying down a comprehensive set of criteria focusing on the genuine effort, intent, and control exerted by the minority community during and after the establishment phase, the Court set aside the restrictive interpretation of the previous precedent. The constitutional interpretation now requires a functional assessment of whether the institution’s creation was rooted in and is continuously controlled by the minority community, the application of which to the specific case of AMU remains pending before a regular bench.
