Source: Times of India 

Introduction  

Supreme Court overrules 1967 verdict holding AMU can't be minority institution the judgment was delivered by a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, overruling the decision in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India,1967 . The court established new criteria for determining minority institution status under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, while leaving the final determination of AMU's minority status to a separate Bench. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud's majority verdict emphasized that the word "established" in Article 30(1) must be interpreted broadly. 

What is the Background of the Case?  

• In 1968, the Supreme Court in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India held that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is not a minority institution as it was not established by the Muslim minority community. 
• In 1981, a two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools questioned the correctness of the Azeez Basha decision and referred the matter to a larger 7-judge bench. 
• In 1981, the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act was passed, amending the long title and preamble of the AMU Act by removing the words "establish and". 
• In 2002, the 11-judge bench in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka framed a question on the indicia for an institution to be considered a minority educational institution. However, this question was not answered in that case. 
• Proceedings were initiated in 2005 challenging the constitutional validity of AMU's reservation policy for Muslim students, arguing that AMU is not a minority institution. 
• The Allahabad High Court in 2005 held that AMU is not a minority institution and its reservation policy is unconstitutional. This was affirmed by the division bench of the High Court in 2006. 
• In 2019, a 3-judge Supreme Court bench noticed that the correctness of the Azeez Basha decision was yet to be determined and referred the matter to a 7-judge bench. 
• The current 7-judge bench is tasked with determining the essential ingredients or indicia for an educational institution to be considered a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 
• The main question is whether an educational institution must be both established and administered by a minority community to qualify as a minority institution. 
• The court has to examine the impact of subsequent events and regulatory measures on the minority character of an institution established by a minority community. 

What were the Court Observations? 

CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra 

• Article 30(1) of Indian Constitution serves a dual purpose: protecting minorities from discrimination in educational matters and granting special administrative rights to minority-run educational institutions. 
• Religious or linguistic minorities must prove they established the educational institution to qualify for protection under Article 30(1), with the minority status being defined as per the Constitution's commencement. 
• The rights under Article 30(1) extend to universities established before the Constitution's commencement, but new right-bearing groups cannot be identified for pre-Constitution institutions. 
• Converting an institution into a university does not automatically forfeit its minority character; courts must examine the circumstances of conversion and administrative setup holistically. 
• For an institution to be considered 'established' by a minority, three essential criteria must be met: ideation from the minority community, purpose benefiting the minority community, and implementation by minority community members. 
• The administrative structure must demonstrate minority character and show that the establishment was intended to protect and promote minority interests. 
• The Azeez Basha ruling is overruled specifically regarding its view that an educational institution loses minority status if it derives legal character through statute. 
• The reference in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya regarding Azeez Basha's decision was valid within the parameters set by Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community. 
• Any legislation or executive action discriminating against minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions violates Article 30(1). 
• The case of AMU's minority status will be determined based on these principles by the regular bench, following administrative instructions from the Chief Justice of India. 

Justice Surya Kant  

• There is no conflict between the Kerala Education Bill (seven-judge bench) and Azeez Basha (five-judge Constitution Bench) decisions. 
• The Sidhajbhai Sabhai ruling that Article 30 rights are absolute and unconditional has been effectively overruled by TMA Pai; therefore, Azeez Basha's non-citation of Sidhajbhai Sabhai does not invalidate it. 
• The distinction between 'doubting' and 'disagreeing' with a judgment is legally insignificant, and the two-judge bench in Anjuman's reference challenging Azeez Basha is procedurally improper. 
• A two-judge bench cannot doubt or disagree with a larger bench's judgment and directly refer it to a numerically larger bench, as this violates the Chief Justice's role as master of the roster under Article 145. 
• While the original Anjuman reference is legally invalid, the subsequent reference dated 12.02.2019, presided over by the Chief Justice, is maintainable. 
• The Azeez Basha ruling is modified regarding its interpretation of Section 6 of the AMU Act, 1920, specifically its conclusion that AMU could not have been established by private individuals due to government recognition of degrees. 
• Minority institutions established before the Constitution came into effect are entitled to protection under Article 30. 
• The term "educational institutions" in Article 30 encompasses universities. 
• To receive Article 30 protection, institutions must pass a two-part test: establishment by a minority community and continuous administration by that community. 
• The specific question of whether AMU meets these criteria for Article 30 protection will be determined by a Regular Bench, as it involves both factual and legal considerations. 

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma 

• The bench in Writ Petition No.54-51 of 1981 could not have directly referred the matter to a 7-judge bench without the Chief Justice. 
• The "establishment" of an institution by a minority is necessary for the minority to claim the right to administer it under Article 30. 
• The term "establishes" in Article 30 means to bring the institution into existence, not just the "genesis" or "founding" of the institution. 
• There are three key factors to determine if a minority has "established" an institution: predominant role in creating the institution, serving the interests of the minority community, and maintaining control over the institution's administration. 
• The judgment in Azeez Basha does not categorically prohibit minorities from establishing universities but highlights the importance of legislative intent and statutory provisions. 
• The use of terms like "establish and incorporate" by the legislature is not conclusively determinative of whether the institution was established by the minority. 
• Article 30 provides important rights to minorities but is not absolute and must be balanced with other fundamental rights. 

Justice Dipankar Datta 

• The claim of the appellants that AMU is a minority institution protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution cannot stand. 
• AMU was neither established by any religious community, nor is it administered by    a religious community regarded as a minority. 
• Therefore, AMU does not qualify as a minority institution under the criteria set forth. 
• The protection available to minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) is thus not applicable to AMU. 
• The references made to the court do not require an answer, and it is declared that AMU is not a minority educational institution. 
• The appeals seeking minority status for AMU should therefore fail. 

Conclusion  

The Court overruled the Azeez Basha view that an institution loses minority status if it derives legal character through statute. It established that determining minority status requires examining the institution's establishment history, purpose, and administrative framework rather than just statutory language. The principles laid down in this judgment will guide the regular bench in determining AMU's minority status. Most importantly, the judgment reinforces that the right under Article 30(1) must be interpreted based on actual circumstances rather than formalistic interpretations.