Secularism And Minority Rights - A Critical Analysis Of The Historic Aligarh Muslim University Judgement

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:03:44.53162+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:06:22.801+00:00

SECULARISM AND MINORITY RIGHTS: A CRITICAL

ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORIC ALIGARH MUSLIM

UNIVERSITY JUDGEMENT

Angel Jenifer K, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore

ABSTRACT

According to the United Nations, minorities are defined as “any group or community which is socially, politically and economically non-dominant and inferior in the population”. Furthermore, they are classified based on ethnicity, culture, religion and language. However, the Constitution of India,

1950 recognises such minorities and protects their rights by guaranteeing

equal opportunity irrespective of the prevailing differences, thereby ensuring to treat everyone at par as guaranteed under Article 14, strengthened through Article 15, which provides reservation in educational institutions and an extraordinary exception under 15(3) rendering special treatment to women and children, Article 16 reserves seats in public employment. Similarly, Article 29 protects the interests of minorities, guaranteeing protection against denial of admission to educational institutions on the grounds of being a minority. That being said, Article 30 is of utmost importance as it recognises the right of a minority to establish and administer educational institutions, also imposing a duty on the state to ensure that there is no discrimination on the grounds of religion and language.

The abovementioned provision is important in this paper as it is the point of discussion at hand. The recent Supreme Court decision rendered on the last day of the tenure of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud marks a change in the era of Aligarh Muslim University's rights to administer and establish minority institution by overturning a decision rendered in 1967. Though applauded by majority the decision has dissenting opinion and is criticized by a majority. Hence, this paper attempts to denounce the nuances of the decision by critically analysing the arguments of the counsels and the decision rendered by the court. Keywords: Constitution, Minority rights, Supreme Court.

Introduction: The Aligarh Muslim University decision1 delivered by the Supreme Court on 8th November

2024 is essentially a landmark decision overruling the decision of the Supreme Court in 1967

in S. Azeez Basha Vs Union of India,2 the Apex Court held that an institution established by a central legislation cannot claim to be a minority institution. Though applauded by the majority is however not free of criticism, this paper attempts to denounce the crux of this judgement, thereby critically analysing the arguments put forth and the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta if any of the court in the decision made. Arguments furnished by the parties to the Case: Petitioners: The primary contentions put forth by the petitioner herein were as stated herewith, firstly the petitioner states that the decision in Azeez Basha is not a good law because it had eventually failed to admit that the terms ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ are not preconditions to determine a minority however are consequential rights on recognition.

Secondly, rebutting the assumption that universities being established by a statute are exempted from enjoying the rights of minority institutions. The petitioner had also stated that the decision in Azeez Basha3 was superseded in TMA Pai,4 which emphasised that the religious character of a particular institution cannot be taken away by the government's intervention. Therefore, upholding Azeez Basha is likely to jeopardize and marginalize the minorities and the institutions established by them, for instance, St. Stephen’s College and Christian Medical College. The petitioner had also stated that the state had acknowledged the rights of minorities even before the independence of the country through various legislative enactments such as the Indian Councils Act of 1909, the Government of India Act or the Minto Morley reforms of

1919 and the Government of India Act, 1935. The abovementioned enactments provided

reservations to Muslims, Sikhs and to Christians in the legislature. It is also essential to understand that Entry 63 of List I in the Seventh Schedule5 enumerated the competence of the

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3213,https://www.scconline.com.

2 1968 AIR 662, https://www.scconline.com.

3 Ibid.

4 (2002) 8 SCC 481,https://www.scconline.com.

5 Constitution of India,1950

Union to make laws regarding AMU and BHU however fails to throw light on who administers or established the university. The petitioner further states that the AMU Act’s evolution can be broadly classified into four phases, such as pre-1951 with Muslim administration, secondly, the 1951 amendment aligning with the provisions of the Constitution and the 1965 Amendment diluting minority status and attempts to restore minority status in 1972 and 1981. 6 Respondents: Firstly, the AMU had voluntarily surrendered its minority institution status to the imperial government under the said Act, which is evident from the Aligarh split, wherein the university administrators choose cooperation with the British government over retaining its Muslim character.

Hence, the British government exerted control over AMU, as evidenced by the provisions of the 1920 Act, dissolving the previous governing body and transferring property and decision-making authority to secular government authorities. The British government ensured that AMU should not be a religious institution and should be mandatorily controlled by secular authorities. Further, the term establish under Article 30 must be interpreted to mean tangible and manifest establishment. 7 The essentials to be fulfilled for an institution to be considered a minority are as follows, firstly, the institution or the university should be necessarily established and administered by the minority community, and secondly, the institution or the university should be established by the minority and for the minority as a minority institution. The respondents further stated that the reliance on St.

Stephen’s is self-defeating because the Court had applied the standard of administrative control as an indicia in that case. Thus, the involvement of the government in the administration and management of the AMU’s establishment, indicates the national and non-minority character of the institution. The respondents further stated that Article 30(1) applies to institutions that were established before the commencement of the Constitution and these judgements dealt primarily with schools and colleges and not universities. 8 Therefore, the said provision does not apply to

6 Supra note 1.

7 Supra note 5.

8 Supra note 5.

a university established before the University Grants Commission (UGC), 1956, it could have been established by the Government and not a person, thus Azeez Basha, was a standalone and statute-specific decision of the court, overruling it would disrupt the Union’s control over AMU, constituting public mischief.9 The precedent set by the case should only be overturned if there is a substantial risk to public interest, which is not the case in hand. Issues:

1. Whether an educational institution must be both established and administered by a

linguistic or religious minority to secure the guarantee under Article 30?

2. Whether Article 30(1) envisages an institution which is established by a minority with

participation from members of other communities? Analysis: Syed Ahmed Khan, in 1877, founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College) at Aligarh, with an intention to provide quality education and popularise British education among Muslim communities by ensuring to balance and protect Islamic values and principles. 10 Though established primarily for the Islamic faith, the said college was also open to other communities. Henceforth, Aligarh Muslim University Act,1920 was passed on 14th September to primarily include the MAO college and another MUA as one and the same under the name Aligarh Muslim University. As per Section 23 of the said Act, the governing body of the University should necessarily be persons belonging to the Islamic faith.

11 However, the same was amended by the 1951 Act, later in 1965, the amendment revoked the court from being the supreme governing body of the AMU, thus making it a body whose members were nominated by the President of India. 12 That being said, in the S. Azeez Basha and Anr Vs. Union of India (1967) the petitioners moved the court challenging the amendment stating that it violated their right to establish and administer educational institutions under Art 30(1), further contended that their constitutional right to carry out religious and charitable causes as under Article 26(a), the freedom of religion

9 Supra note 1.

10 Advay Vora, Aligarh Muslim University Judgement: Explained, (Nov 16th,2024), https://www.scobserver.in.

11 Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920.

12 AMU Minority Status, (Jan 13,2025), https://www.scobserver.in.

as under Article 25 and the right to conserve culture and language under Article 29 and the right to acquire property under Article 31 was violated. 13 However, on October 20, 1967, the constitutional bench comprising CJ K. N. Wanchoo and Justices R. S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, G. K. Mitter and K. S. Hedge, upheld the amendment stating that the rights of the petitioners as stated above was not violated as the AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority. The Act was also enacted through a Central Legislation. Simultaneously, the act was amended in 1981 and redefined ‘university’ as an institution established by the Muslims of India which became AMU from MAO College. In 2005 50% of seats in post medical courses for Muslim candidates were reserved by the AMU, claiming it to be a minority institution.

14 The same was challenged in Dr Nargesh Agarwal Vs Union of India (2005), the Allahabad High Court, held that AMU was not a minority institution and therefore could not have an exclusive reservation policy. 15 Subsequently in 2006 the decision of the High Court was challenged by the University and the Union Government in the Supreme court. Justices K. G. Balakrishnan and D. K. Jain put a stay on the reservation policy, it was further referred to a larger bench. 16 In 2019, a three judge bench referred the issue to a seven judge bench to resolve the legal questions surrounding AMU’S minority status. In 2024 on November 8th, the seven-judge bench comprising of DR. DY Chandrachud, CJ Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant J, JB Pardiwala J,Dipankar Datta J, Manoj Mishra J and Satish Chandra Sharma J, in 4:3 overruled the 1967 decision.

17 The court opined, that Article 30 should not be restricted to post-constitutional institutions alone, in such a case it is likely to undermine the very purpose of Article 30 which aims primarily to safeguard minority communities’ cultural and educational interests. 18 The court further distinguished between the term ‘establishment’ and ‘administration’. Though AMU was incorporated by the 1920 Act, the idea of establishing AMU was the vision of its founding father namely Syed Ahmed Khan, and the mission was to benefit the Muslim community particularly. The idea behind the incorporation of AMU aligned well with the

13 Supra note 1.

14 Shamin Akhtar, Aligarh Muslim University, a Minority Institution-Agitation, Legislation and the Law Courts,1965-2009, 70 PIHC 1169, 1173 (2009), https://www.jstor.org.

15 (2005) 4 ESC 2489, https://www.indiankanoon.org.

16 Ibid.

17 Supra note 1.

18 Ibid.

principles and essentials or the goals of Article 30, which prima facie safeguarded the institutions that advance the cultural and educational interests of minorities. 19 Additionally, the court stated that just because the administrators of a minority institution were hired outside the minority community, will not deprive the minority status/character of a minority institution. Though the minority opinion was a victory for AMU University, the judgement was not in the absence of dissent, namely Surya Kant J, agreed that Azeez Basha decision required a revisit but did not agree with overturning it as a whole. Further stated that the intention of the legislation is essentially to be critically examined. 20 Similarly, according to Dipankar Dutt J, Azeez Basha was a sound decision and, therefore, did not require a revisit; hence was firmly against the majority opinion.

Satish Chandra Gupta J, opined that for an institution to be considered a minority institution under Article 30, it should be established and administered exclusively by the minority community. 21 Conclusion: Hence the historic Aligarh Muslim University judgement of the Apex Court is not only a victory for the minority institution, but it is a triumph for the cultural and educational freedom enshrined in the Constitution of India,1950. This decision also paves the way for a legal landscape of minority rights in India under Article 30, thus being a guiding light for all disputes involving minority rights, specifically in terms of minority educational institutions.

On the other day, the judgement is severally criticised for being a wrong law, primarily because an institution to be recognised under the said provision should be solely established and administered by the minority community however that is not the situation in the case in hand as substantial funds for running the university is primarily funded by the government, hence AMU cannot be a minority institution and enjoy the benefits of being a minority institution. That being said the 2024 judgement rendered on the final working day of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is a landmark decision, which is a precedent setting out the principles for determining a minority institution in all future verdicts, hence overturning the 1967 judgement and leaving the decision open-ended to be decided by a regular bench. 19Iqbal A.

Ansari, Distorting the Reality of Aligarh Muslim University, 41(2) EPW 101, 103 (2006), https://www. jstor. org.

20 Supra note 1.

21 Ibid.