NEW DELHI: In a pivotal hearing regarding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Supreme Court of India delved into the interpretation and implications of Article 30 of the Constitution. The seven-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is examining a challenge to the 2006 Allahabad High Court decision which stated that AMU, despite being established by a minority community, was not administered as a minority institution and thus could not claim minority status.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reexamines AMU’s Minority Status (Day-1)
During the fourth day of arguments, the Bench and the bar engaged in a detailed discussion about the nature of Article 30. Attorney General for India (AG) R Venkataramani, in his written submissions, described Article 30 as an enabling provision. However, the Bench questioned this characterization, with CJI Chandrachud clarifying:
“You see enabling provision is like Article 15 where you have a choice to make a provision. 30 is not enabling so far as the state is concerned. It is an obligation on the state. It cannot be that I as a state can decide to grant or deny you the status.”
To which, the AG clarified:
“The choice part is given to each citizen, but a higher status is given to the minority, therefore I say it enables them to reach a level beyond the other common considerations.”
Justice Sanjiv Khanna raised a pertinent question about the potential impact of future legislation similar to the UGC Act on the rights granted under Article 30.
The AG responded:
“The Constitution provides for an overarching framework, so the statutes come in and say these are what you will do, that is the setup and a class of the institution. Article 30 comes in at a point in time when the competence part of it is answered. Within the broader constitutional framework, my choice is unfettered.”
CJI Chandrachud expressed concerns about the AG’s submissions, suggesting that interpreting Article 30 as contingent upon statutory recognition could be overly broad. He stated:
“Your argument if stretched will apply to every institution, that unless there is an enabling provision you cannot set up any educational institution in India, can’t even set up a primary school… The article 30 right is contingent on an enabling provision of the legislation recognizing that right in the statutory term… the problem about your argument is that once you say that the right under Article 30 is contingent upon an enabling legal framework, that will apply to every right or matter of choice.”
The AG countered:
“Either the legislature intervenes, or the law intervenes and gives competence.”
ALSO READ: AMU Minority Status | Day 3- Supreme Court Clarifies Article 30
CJI further said:
“There cannot be a doubt that Article 30 is contingent on compliance with regulatory provisions; 2nd even minority institutions do not fall below the national standard. But can the right to establish a minority institution itself be contingent on the recognition by enabling statute? That argument seems to be overbroad.”
In interpreting so, the CJI opined-
“You will be making a constitutional right subservient to the statute.”
Advocate MR Shamshad, arguing in favor of AMU’s minority status, acknowledged the necessity for minority institutions to comply with regulatory provisions and said:
“The regulatory provisions have to be complied with even by a minority institution.”
The Bench is also set to hear arguments from Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta.
This case, arising from the 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court and a subsequent 2019 reference to a larger bench, questions whether a university established and governed by statute can claim minority status. The correctness of the 1967 Supreme Court judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India, which rejected AMU’s minority status, and the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, are also under scrutiny.
The ongoing hearing is a crucial moment in Indian legal history, as it addresses fundamental questions about minority rights, the role of educational institutions, and the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for minority educational institutions across the country.
Reports of previous hearings:
Supreme Court Reexamines AMU’s Minority Status (Day-1)
AMU Minority Status | Day 3- Supreme Court Clarifies Article 30
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
