Universities are different from religious institutions

The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case (2024) has garnered attention following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India, which overruled the controversial 1967 S. Azeez Basha judgment that had denied AMU’s minority status. This judgment revisits critical issues surrounding the constitutional rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30. The ruling has sparked debates about the role of historical contexts, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations in determining the minority character of an institution like AMU.

The AMU Judgment and Its Historical Context

• Overruling of 1967 Judgment: In the 2024 case, the Supreme Court overruled the Azeez Basha (1967) judgment, which had declared AMU was not a minority institution. The ruling affirmed that AMU, established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1877, is a minority educational institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution.
• The Incorporating Act and Minority Status: While dissenting judges emphasized the importance of the statutory provisions of the AMU Act, the majority held that the minority character of the university should not solely depend on the incorporating statute.
• Role of Historical Legacy: Justice Chandrachud also acknowledged the historical role of AMU in fostering Muslim education and cultural regeneration.

Key Legal Interpretations in the Judgment

• Flexible Approach to Minority Rights: The bench adopted a flexible framework in determining the minority character of AMU. The judgment emphasized that a broader interpretation of Article 30 should be applied, considering factors like intent to establish and administer, rather than rigidly adhering to pre-constitutional criteria.
• Governmental Control and Minority Rights: The dissenters criticized the judgment's leniency towards governmental control over minority institutions. However, the majority held that greater governmental oversight does not undermine the minority status of an institution. The judgment reaffirmed that such controls are only meant to ensure efficiency and standards, not to dilute the minority rights guaranteed under Article 30.
• Minority Surrender of Rights: A critical issue in the judgment was the dissenting view that minority institutions should not be allowed to waive their fundamental rights. The majority judgment found that such surrender is impermissible under the Constitution. This view aligns with earlier rulings, such as Basheshar Nath (1959), which ruled out the waiver of fundamental rights by minority institutions.

Practice Question:

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgment in the 2024 Aligarh Muslim University case, highlighting its implications on minority rights, judicial interpretations, and the future of educational institutions in India.