Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration

In an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s Order in Naresh Agarwal (Dr.) v. Union of India, 2005 whereby, Aligarh Muslim University’s (‘AMU’) action of 50 percent seat reservation in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates by claiming it to be a minority institution, was struck down and held that AMU cannot have an exclusive reservation because it is not a minority institution, the Seven-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. in 4: 3 overruled the Five-Judge Bench verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967, which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution, hence AMU as created by an Act of Parliament, is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

Whether an educational institution must be both established and administered by a linguistic or religious minority to secure the guarantee under Article 30?
What are the criteria to be satisfied for the ‘establishment’ of a minority institution?
Whether Article 30(1) envisages an institution which is established by a minority with participation from members of other communities;
Whether a minority educational institution which is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act 1860 soon after its establishment loses its status as a minority educational institution by virtue of such registration; and
Whether the decision of this Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420 and the amendment of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act 2005 in 2010 have a bearing on the question formulated above and if so, in what manner….

Brief Undertanding about Amu through the time line in this case

1877- Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Founded the Muhammadan Anglo- orientation college (MAO Colle) at aligarh

The britishers imperial legislative council enacted the aligarh muslim university Act (AMU Act) incorporating AMU as a university
Indian independence
Indian constitution Article 30
A constitution bench (5 judge) in which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution, hence AMU as created by an Act of Parliament, is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
Parliament enacted the aligarh muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1981. This Amendment chenged the AMU Act and changed the definition of the word “University” as an institution “established by the muslims of India, etc.

Note: the parliament tried to rectify the mistakes becoz of which AMU lost the minority university status.

The AMU reserved 50% seats in postgraduate medical courses for muslim andidates by claaming it to be a minority institution.
This bill was challedged in Dr. Naresh Agarwal v Union of India . The Allahabad High Court struch down the reservation policy and held that the AMU couldnot have an exclusive reservation because it was not a minority institution acoording to S. Azeez Basha.
A three judges bench heard the AMU’S appeal and referred the decision in S. Azeez Basha for reconsideration by a seven – judge bench.

Decision-

The Suprme court by a 4:3 majority overruled Azeezz Basha.

The majority held that merely because an institution is created by a statute does not strip it of minority status.

The majority also held that Article 30(1) protectes institutes established before the constitution came into force in 1950.

The court laid criteria to determine when an institution is a minority institution benefitting from Article 30(1) protection.

The Court further laid down the factors which must be used to determine if a minority ‘established’ an educational institution: The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community; second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for the implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community; and The administrative set up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (I) the minority character of the educational institution; and (II) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community. The Court overruled the view taken in Azeez Basha (supra) that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute.

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL