Context

• The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), which evolved from the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (M.A.O.) College established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1877, stands as a prominent testament to Muslim educational and cultural aspirations in post-1857 India.
• Over the decades, its status as a minority institution has been a matter of extensive legal and constitutional deliberation, culminating in significant judgments by the Supreme Court of India.
• The recent 2024 decision by a seven-judge bench overturns the controversial S. Azeez Basha judgment (1967), marking a pivotal moment in the discourse on minority rights under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.

The Historical Context, Controversy and Shift in Jurisprudence

• The Historical Context and Controversy
  • The M.A.O. College, conceived as a catalyst for Muslim regeneration through modern education, eventually became the AMU in 1920.
  • However, the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling in S. Azeez Basha declared that the university was neither established nor administered by Muslims, thereby denying it minority status.
  • This judgment, rendered without AMU being heard, has since been criticized for its formalistic interpretation of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920.
  • It failed to account for the historical and cultural legacy of the institution, overlooking the fact that the M.A.O. College, established by Muslim efforts, formed the foundation of AMU.
• The Progressive Shift in Jurisprudence
  • The 2024 verdict reflects a broader liberal trend in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
  • Over the years, the Supreme Court has moved away from rigid, positivist interpretations of law, as seen in landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
  • Both cases involved overruling earlier judgments to uphold fundamental rights, demonstrating the Court's commitment to a living, transformative Constitution.
  • In the AMU case, the judges embraced a holistic approach to determining minority status, emphasising intent and administration over statutory formalities.
  • Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud aptly noted that the right to administer is a consequence of establishing an institution, aligning with the constitutional protection granted to minorities under Article 30.

Dissent and Its Implications

• Justice Dipankar Datta’s Unique Position
  • Justice Dipankar Datta, in his dissent, described himself as a minority within a minority, acknowledging his partial alignment with the dissenting judges on some substantive points while differing with them on others.
  • For instance, he agreed with the dissenters on the statutory significance of the Aligarh Muslim University Act and its role in determining AMU's character but diverged on the broader applicability of the references made in 1981 and 2019 to larger benches.
  • Justice Datta declared both references invalid, which was a procedural disagreement with the majority.
  • However, in an unusual move, he still proceeded to adjudicate the matter by applying both the majority's and the dissenters' frameworks, effectively pre-empting the conclusions of a smaller three-judge bench that would traditionally handle such cases.
  • This departure from judicial norms raises questions about judicial discipline and the boundaries of a reference bench’s authority.
• The Dissenting Judges’ Focus on Statutory Provisions
  • The dissenting judges placed considerable emphasis on the statutory provisions of the AMU, particularly its governance structure, to argue against the university's minority status.
  • They contended that AMU, being governed like other universities, could not retain its exclusive minority character.
  • This interpretation leaned heavily on the idea of minority dominance in administration, suggesting that for an institution to qualify as a minority entity, its governance must remain largely exclusive to the minority community.
• The Test of Minority Dominance
  • The dissenters’ insistence on the test of "minority dominance" introduces a restrictive standard for determining minority character.
  • By suggesting that AMU's governance, resembling other universities, disqualifies it as a minority institution, they effectively narrow the scope of Article 30 protections.
  • This stance fails to account for the unique nature of universities as public institutions that serve diverse populations while retaining their minority identity.
  • Unlike purely religious or communal institutions, universities like AMU aim to balance their foundational principles with broader societal contributions.

Procedural and Factual Oversights and Implications for Minority Rights Jurisprudence

• Procedural and Factual Oversights
  • Justice Datta’s dissent is further notable for certain factual inaccuracies.
  • His claim that ₹30 lakh was not raised for AMU’s establishment overlooks historical records, including a letter from Harcourt Butler, a Member of the Governor-General's Council, which explicitly made this financial contribution a prerequisite for the university's incorporation.
  • Additionally, his interpretation of AMU's incorporation as a break from the M.A.O. College’s minority character ignores the continuity clauses in the 1920 Act.
  • These clauses explicitly transferred the rights, privileges, debts, and liabilities of the M.A.O. College to AMU, thereby preserving its foundational identity.
• Implications for Minority Rights Jurisprudence
  • The dissenting opinions in the 2024 judgment underscore the enduring tension between formalistic and liberal interpretations of minority rights.
  • By emphasising statutory governance structures over historical intent and community contributions, the dissenters risked narrowing the scope of protections under Article 30.
  • However, their focus on judicial discipline and procedural rigor serves as a reminder of the need for consistency and restraint in constitutional adjudication.

The Majority’s Oversights and Broader Implications

• The Majority’s Oversights
  • While the majority judgment rightly upheld AMU’s minority status, it erred in suggesting that the minority community might have surrendered its right to administer the institution.
  • Fundamental rights under Article 30 cannot be waived or surrendered, as established in Basheshar Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner (1959) and reiterated in St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974).
  • Such rights are integral to the identity and autonomy of minority institutions and cannot be diluted.
• Broader Implications
  • The AMU case underscores the delicate balance between governmental oversight and minority rights.
  • Judicial discipline, as highlighted by the dissenting judges, must be exercised without compromising the autonomy of minority institutions.
  • While regulations to maintain efficiency and standards are permissible, they should not infringe upon the core rights of minorities to establish and administer their institutions.

Conclusion

• The 2024 AMU judgment is a landmark in the Indian judiciary's evolving interpretation of minority rights.
• It not only reaffirms the minority character of AMU but also highlights the importance of historical context and constitutional principles in adjudicating such matters.
• The judgment ensures that this legacy, rooted in the ideals of founding members, remains protected under the Indian Constitution.