Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Sanjiv Khanna J, Surya Kant J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Dipankar Datta J, Manoj Misra J, S.C. Sharma J
NEW DELHI: In a pivotal legal debate, the Supreme Court of India’s seven-judge bench continued its examination of the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on the second day of hearings. The focus remained on the interpretation and implications of Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing AMU, challenged the 1967 ruling in S. Azeez Basha v Union of India, which denied AMU its minority status. Dhavan argued that this judgment is no longer valid, citing its contradictory nature. The ruling allowed religious minorities to establish universities under Article 30, but paradoxically stated that these institutions would lose their minority status upon being recognized under a statute, as happened with the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Deliberate on AMU’s Minority Status
Dhavan highlighted another contradiction in the Azeez Basha judgment. While acknowledging that AMU was initially established by the Muslim community, the ruling concluded that the university’s origins and administration were rooted in legislation, not in the efforts of the Muslim minority. This interpretation, Dhavan argued, undermines the rights of minorities under Article 30.
Further, Dhavan pointed out that the Azeez Basha decision was superseded by subsequent rulings, notably the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (2002), which upheld the religious character of institutions against government interventions. He referenced several other cases, including State of Kerala v Very Rev. Mother Provincial (1970), Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v State of Gujarat (1974), and St. Stephen’s College v University of Delhi (1992), all supporting the rights of minority institutions under Article 30.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Aligarh Muslim University Old Boys Alumni Association, emphasized the role of Article 30 in facilitating quality education for minorities. He argued that the establishment of AMU aimed to provide quality education specifically to Muslims, a point he claimed was overlooked in the Azeez Basha case. Sibal highlighted the potential negative impact on the Muslim community’s career prospects if AMU is not recognized under Article 30, as it would lead to fewer degrees and job opportunities.
Sibal also clarified the rights under Article 30, stating that minority institutions have a broad discretion in their administration. He argued that the government’s interventions in administration are acceptable only if the institution chooses to accept them. This choice, he emphasized, is vested solely with the institution.
The arguments presented by Dhavan and Sibal challenge the historical interpretation of AMU’s status and seek to reinforce the rights of minority institutions under the Indian Constitution. The continuation of these arguments is scheduled for the following day, promising further insights into this significant legal debate.
Sibal was pointing out that administration by non-members of a community does not mean that minorities have relinquished their control. He remarked that denying this right to institutions makes Article 30 lose its purpose.
“Might as well get rid of Article 30, why have it at all?” he dryly asked.
Arguments are expected to continue today (11 January 2024) at 10:30 AM.
