Supreme Court's decision on minority institutions

Reference:

• The Constitutional Bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court has upheld the recognition of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) as a minority institution by a majority of 4:3.
• In its recent decision, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has rejected its own decision given in the year 1967 in the case of S. Aziz Basha vs Union of India.

S. Aziz Basha vs Union of India case:

• In the year 1967, in the case of S. Aziz Basha vs Union of India, the Constitutional Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court had held that AMU is not a minority institution.
• For this, the Supreme Court cited the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 through which this university was established.
  • The court held that AMU was not established and administered by the Muslim community, which is a mandatory requirement for minority educational institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court gave its decision on a petition challenging two amendments to the Act relating to the establishment of the university.
  • The first of these amendments was made in the year 1951 which allowed non-Muslims to be members of the University Court, the highest governing body of the university, and appointed the President of India as the Visitor in place of the Lord Rector of the university.
    • According to the Amendment Act of 1951, the Lord Rector was the highest official of AMU who had the power to issue orders to the Executive Council, Academic Council and University Court.
    • The role of the Lord Rector was to ensure that the British government maintained control over the institution.
    • Under this Amendment Act, the Governor-General of the British Government was given the title of Lord Rector.
  • The second amendment of 1965 expanded the powers of the Executive Council of AMU, which meant that the University Court would no longer be the supreme governing body.
• The government amended the AMU Act in 1981 according to which it was established by the Muslim community to promote the cultural and educational advancement of Muslims in India.
  

Allahabad High Court Decision:

• In 2005, AMU provided 50% reservation to Muslim students in postgraduate medical programmes for the first time.
• In 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down both the University Reservation Order and the 1981 Amendment on the ground that AMU was not a minority institution as per the decision given by the Supreme Court in the Aziz Basha case.
• Soon after, the Allahabad High Court order was challenged in the Supreme Court. In 2019, the matter was referred to a seven-judge bench.

Centre's stand:

• According to the Centre, AMU never had the tag of a minority institution. Also, after AMU was established in 1920 under an imperial law, its religious status was revoked and since then it has not been administered by the Muslim minority.
• According to the Centre, S. Aziz Basha vs Union of India was a case specific decision and it will have no impact on the minority status of other institutions.
• The Centre argued before the Supreme Court this year that after AMU is declared a minority institution, it will not provide reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Backward Classes (EWS) except Muslims in jobs and admissions.
  • This will change the administrative structure of AMU. Also, despite being an institution of national importance, it will have a different admission process from other such institutions.
• The Centre argued that a large national institution like AMU should maintain its secular nature and serve the larger interest of the nation first.

AMU's stand:

• In 1981, the AMU Act was amended to mention that the university was "established by the Muslims of India".
• The petitioners have argued that this has no bearing on who is in charge of the administration of the university.
  • Article 30(1) gives minorities the right to choose who is in charge of the administration without affecting the minority status of the institution concerned.
• According to the petitioners, the Court's decision in S. Aziz Basha vs Union of India was contradictory as the Court had held that for a university degree to be valid, the university must be recognised by a statute.
  • However, the Court had also observed that recognition by a statute would take away the minority status of AMU.
  • Acceptance of this decision would affect the minority status of other minority institutions established under the statute.
• According to AMU, the Centre's argument negates the constitutional provision protecting special rights of minorities. Also, Article 30 itself recognises the rights of communities that also need special protection.
  • Therefore, the exemption granted to minority educational institutions by Article 15(5) is not an exception to equality but seeks to balance the needs of different sections of society.
    

Recent Supreme Court Judgments:

• A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has overturned its 1967 judgment that held that a central university like Aligarh Muslim University could not be granted minority institution status.
  • However, whether Aligarh Muslim University will be granted minority institution status or not will be decided by a regular bench of the apex court.
• According to the court, the word ‘established’ in Article 30(1) should be given a wider meaning. The judgment has laid down certain tests to determine whether an educational institution can claim minority status under Article 30(1) of the Constitution:
  • Who was the ‘brain’ behind the establishment of an institution (to see if that person was a member of a minority community)
  • What was the purpose of its establishment and what steps were taken to implement that purpose (such as to see how land was acquired and who provided funds).
• The Supreme Court observed that it cannot rely on the language of the AMU Act to determine the founder of the university, which states that the university was established under the Act.
  • This would make Article 30(1), described as a fundamental right, subject to a statutory enactment.
  • Without minority status, AMU would have to follow reservation policies for both teachers and students, similar to other public universities.

Impact on AMU reservation policy:

• Granting minority status to AMU allows the university to provide up to 50% reservation for Muslim students.
  • At present, AMU does not follow any reservation policy. However, it has an internal reservation policy where 50% of seats are reserved for students who have studied in its affiliated schools or colleges.
• In 2006, minority educational institutions were exempted from reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) under Article 15(5). 
• As the minority status of AMU is pending in the court, in the year 2006 Supreme Court directed to maintain status quo, hence there is no SC/ST reservation in the university.