Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 5th Dec. 2024 Click Here for more information
Source: The post Supreme Court clarifies the interpretation of Article 30 and its implications for minority institutions in India has been created, based on the article “Universities are different from religious institutions” published in “The Hindu” on 16th November 2024
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS paper2-Constitution of India —historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.
Context: The article discusses the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) case, focusing on a 2024 Supreme Court judgment. It overrules the 1967 Azeez Basha case, clarifying AMU’s status as a minority institution. The article highlights different judicial views and the evolving interpretation of Article 30.
For detailed information on Minority Institutions in India- Determination Criteria, Benefits and Challenges read this article here
What is the Background of the AMU Case?
- Foundation of AMU: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan founded the M.A.O. College in 1877, which later became the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). It was seen as a key effort in Muslim education post-1857.
- Controversy on Minority Status: In 1967, the Supreme Court in S. Azeez Basha declared that AMU was neither established nor administered by Muslims. The university was not heard during the judgment.
- Role of M.A.O. College: AMU inherited all debts, rights, and privileges of M.A.O. College, recognized as a minority institution. Historical evidence, such as the 1912 letter from Harcourt Butler, confirmed that ₹30 lakh was raised to establish AMU.
What Was the Supreme Court’s Decision in AMU judgment 2024?
- The Supreme Court overruled the 1967 S. Azeez Basha judgment, recognizing Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) as a minority institution.
- A seven-judge Supreme Court Bench, in a 4-3 majority, introduced a “holistic and realistic” test to assess an institution’s minority status, leaving AMU’s case to a smaller Bench.
- The court emphasized a broad interpretation of Article 30, extending protection to pre-constitutional-era institutions like AMU.
- The judgment rejected arguments that governmental control or governance structures negate minority status, supporting AMU’s historical and legal continuity with M.A.O. College.
- The court affirmed that the right to administer is a consequence of establishment, ensuring AMU’s place as a minority institution of national importance.
What are the other important cases related to the interpretation of Article 30?
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case (2002)
- The 11-judge Bench clarified the administrative rights of minority institutions under Article 30.
- It identified rights such as selecting students, fixing fees, choosing governing bodies, and disciplining employees.
- The case limited governmental interference while ensuring educational standards.
- Xaviers Case (1974)
- This case highlighted the importance of “choice” in the establishment and administration of minority institutions under Article 30.
- Justice M.H. Beg ruled that any law indirectly forcing minorities to give up their rights would be void.
- It emphasized a balance between administrative rights and general educational standards.
- Kerala Education Bill Case (1958)
- The Court reiterated that “choice” is a key element under Article 30 for minorities to establish and administer institutions.
- It emphasized that these rights cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
- Basheshar Nath Case (1959)
- This case ruled that fundamental rights cannot be waived.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision supports AMU’s role as a significant minority institution, capable of contributing to national importance while maintaining its foundational identity. This aligns with the vision of its founders and the broader goals of Article 30.
Question for practice:
Examine how the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment on Aligarh Muslim University clarifies the interpretation of Article 30 and its implications for minority institutions in India.