Minority educational institution - polity

NEWS: The Supreme Court ruled that an educational institution established by a minority community retains its minority identity even if recognized by a statute.

  • The decision came in a 4:3 majority judgment by a seven-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Judgement's Basis and Minority Status of AMU

  • Chief Justice Chandrachud authored the majority judgment, responding to petitions about the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
  • The court confirmed that an institution set up by a minority community is indeed a minority educational institution, but the community must prove the institution was established to preserve its cultural heritage.

 Differing Opinions on the Bench

  • Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma presented dissenting opinions.
  • Justice Datta, in his dissent, noted a lack of meaningful consultation among the seven judges, with limited dialogue due to workload pressures.

 What Did the 1967 Azeez Basha Case Say (Background)?

  • In 1967, the Supreme Court had ruled that AMU (founded in 1875 and incorporated by imperial law in 1920) was not a minority institution.
  • The court argued that AMU, despite being established by Muslims, was a statutory institution (meaning it was created by a law of Parliament) and therefore could not be classified as an institution established and administered by a religious minority.

Overruling the 1967 Azeez Basha Case

  • The court overturned the 1967 Azeez Basha v. Union of India judgment, which held that AMU, being a Central university, could not be considered a minority institution.
  • The decision challenged the precedent that religious minorities lacked the right to administer institutions they did not establish.

Reference to Article 30(1) of the Constitution

  • Article 30(1) grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
  • Chief Justice Chandrachud described Article 30 as both an anti-discriminatory and "special rights" provision, ensuring autonomy and protection for minority educational institutions.
  • According to Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Education Institution Act, a minority institution means a college or institution (other than a university) established or maintained by a person or group of person from amongst the minority.

Legislative and Judicial History of AMU’s Minority Status

  • AMU, established in 1875, regained minority status through the AMU (Amendment) Act of 1981.
  • However, in 2006, the Allahabad High Court invalidated AMU’s minority status. This issue was referred to a seven-judge Supreme Court Bench in 2019.

Petitioners' Concerns and Broader Implications

  • Petitioners argued that upholding Azeez Basha could jeopardize the minority status of institutions like St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, and Christian Medical College, Vellore.
  • The recent ruling extends Article 30 protections to secular education, ensuring that legislative or executive actions do not infringe on minority rights.

Justice Datta's Concerns on Consultative Process

  • Justice Datta expressed disappointment over the rushed nature of the consultative process among the judges.
  • He highlighted the need for dialogue, idea exchange, and consensus-building, which were compromised due to time constraints and judicial workload.
  • Justice Datta expressed regret over limited time to articulate his views fully, striving to circulate his opinion by November 6, 2024, as committed to the CJI.
  • He acknowledged that his opinion could have been more refined with adequate time for expression.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/what-supreme-court-ruled-in-amu-minority-status-case-9660677/lite/