The Supreme Court on January 11 observed that the right given to religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution was not intended to “ghettoise” them.
The minority character of an educational institution is not lost if its founders, who belong to a particular minority community, chose administrators from other communities, including the majority group, to run the institution, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud observed.
The Chief Justice was heading a seven-judge Bench hearing a reference related to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
“Article 30 does not mandate that the administration of a minority educational institution should be only by members of that community. The provision confers on the minority the discretion to choose the administrators of the institution,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represents the AMU Old Boys’ Association, said whether or not an educational institution has minority character should be learnt from its genesis.
“The inspiration to found the institution, the essential paraphernalia of funding it, persuading the government to accept the institution and give it a minority tag — all of this should be by the minority community members. The genesis of the institution is the test of determining its minority character,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
A five-judge Bench in S. Azeez Basha versus Union of India case in 1967 had held that the AMU was a central university and cannot be considered a minority institution.
The university, established in 1875, had got its minority status back when the Parliament enacted the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981. In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court, however, struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which the university was accorded the minority status. The issue was referred to a seven-judge Bench in 2019.
‘National character’
In its written submissions, the Centre has contended that the AMU cannot be considered a minority institution given its “national character”. The government said the AMU was not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination. It said a university declared as an institution of national importance cannot be a minority institution.
The university had contended that it was established by the Muslim community for educating and empowering the community.
“I am a successful minority institution cannot be the basis of making me move out of my minority zone. A minority institution can be an institution of national importance,” advocate Shadan Farasat, also for a petitioner, submitted.
He said the AMU has been the go-to university for Muslim women across India in their pursuit of higher education. Mr. Farasat submitted that the two essential things that a minority community wants is the right to retain their identity and to be part of the national life and mainstream.
Mr. Sibal also argued that an institution did not lose its minority character merely by complying with the uniform standards prescribed for varsities through regulations and statutes.
