Court Said Minority Institutions Can Involve Non-Minorities in Administration.
NEW DELHI: In a significant development regarding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, made pivotal observations on January 11. The Court clarified that the protection granted to minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution is not negated simply because the minority community involves others in the administration.
Chief Justice Chandrachud, presiding over a seven-judge bench, emphasized that the purpose of Article 30 is not to isolate minorities. He stated,
“The object of Article 30 is not to ghettoise the minorities. So if you let other people associate with your institution, it doesn’t detract from your character as a minority institution.”
This observation underscores the inclusive nature of Article 30, allowing minority institutions to maintain their status even when including members from outside their community in administrative roles.
Further elaborating on the essence of Article 30, the Chief Justice highlighted the element of choice conferred upon minorities. He remarked,
“Article 30 does not mandate that the administration has to be by the minority itself. What Article 30 contemplates and recognizes is the right, mainly the right of choice, the discretion given to minorities to administer in a manner which they deem appropriate.”
This statement reinforces the autonomy of minority institutions in deciding their administrative structure.
Echoing similar sentiments in the previous day’s hearing, the Chief Justice had clarified that the minority character of an institution is not diluted by the participation of non-minority candidates in its administration. He affirmed the minority’s right to establish and administer their institutions as per their choice, a fundamental aspect of Article 30.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reexamines AMU’s Minority Status (Day-1)
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the AMU Old Boys Association, contributed to the discussion by sharing his experience as a member of the governing body of St. Stephen’s College in Delhi, where most members were non-minority. He pointed out the practical necessity for minorities to involve others in administration due to varying expertise levels.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, is addressing a reference arising from a 2006 Allahabad High Court verdict that denied AMU’s minority status. Key issues include whether a university established by statute can claim minority status and the validity of the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to the university.
This hearing, marking the third day of proceedings, is part of a larger legal discourse on the rights and status of minority educational institutions in India. The Supreme Court’s ongoing deliberations are set to shape the future framework of minority rights in the educational sector.
Arguments are expected to continue on 23rd of JAN, 2024.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
