A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court laid down in a 4-3 majority verdict a “holistic and realistic” test to determine the “minority character” of an educational institution that would ensure special protections under Article 30.

• This landmark judgement addresses longstanding debates surrounding AMU’s establishment, purpose, and the rights of minorities to administer educational institutions.

Supreme Court Revisits AMU’s Minority Status, Final Decision Deferred

• Challenge by the Petitioners: The petitioners had challenged the five-judge Bench judgement in the 1967 case of S. Azeez Basha versus Union of India, which had held that AMU was a Central university and cannot be considered a minority institution. 
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court has overruled its 1967 Azeez Basha ruling and stated that an institution’s establishment by statute doesn’t negate its minority status.
• Final Determination of AMU’s Minority Status Deferred: The final determination on AMU’s minority status is deferred to a separate Bench.
  • The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgement.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

About Minority Educational Institutions (MEI)

• Definition: “Minority Educational Institution” means a college or an educational institution established and administered by a minority or minorities.
• Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India: Provides for all linguistic and religious minorities a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. 

• Enactment of the NCMEI Act: The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) Act has been enacted to safeguard the educational rights of the minorities enshrined in Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
  • The Commission is a quasi judicial body with powers of a Civil Court.
  • It has three main roles namely adjudicatory, advisory and recommendatory.
  • It has both original as well as appellate jurisdiction.
  • The Commission has the power to cancel the minority status of an educational institution granted by an Authority or Commission, on grounds laid down in the Act.
• Protections for Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs):
  • Exemptions under Article 15(5): MEIs are exempt from providing reservations for SCs and STs.
  • Administration Rights: Minority status also allows educational institutions to exercise greater control over their day-to-day administration from student admissions (they can reserve up to 50% seats for minority students) to the hiring of teaching and non-teaching staff.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Core Essentials of Minority Character Under Article 30(1)

• The majority decision of the Supreme Court listed out the “core essentials” of minority character under Article 30(1).
• Purpose of Establishment: The primary goal of a minority institution should be to preserve the language and culture of the minority group.
  • However, this does not need to be the institution’s sole purpose.
• Admission of Non-Minority Students: A minority institution retains its minority character even if it admits students from non-minority communities.
• Secular Education: Secular education can be imparted at a minority institution without affecting its minority character. 
• Religious Instruction in Government-Aided Institutions: If a minority institution has received aid from the government, no student can be forced to participate in religious instruction;
  • If the institution is fully maintained out of state funds, it cannot provide religious instruction. 
  • However these institutions must still be considered minority institutions.
• National Importance vs. Minority Status
  • The judgement clarified that institutions recognised as nationally significant under Entry 63 of the Union List can simultaneously hold minority status. 
  • The Chief Justice argued that national significance and minority rights are not mutually exclusive.
• Dissenting Opinions
  • The dissenting judges argued that AMU’s recognition as an institution of national importance undermined its minority character. 
  • They also questioned the procedural validity of the 1981 referral by a two-judge bench, expressing concern about procedural overreach in the referral process.

Test laid down by Supreme Court To Determine The Minority Character Of An Institution

• The Supreme Court established a “holistic and realistic” test based on two primary criteria: Establishment and Administration.
• Broader Interpretation of “Established”: The ruling clarified that the term “established” should be interpreted broadly, meaning an institution can retain its minority status even if it is governed by a statutory body or has experienced changes in its legal status over time.
• Establishment Criteria: 
  • Genesis of the Institution: Courts should examine the origin, purpose, and implementation of the idea for establishing the institution.
  • Criteria for Identifying Founders: To establish who founded an institution, courts should:
    • Trace the institution’s conceptual origin.
    • Identify the “brain behind” its establishment, based on letters, communications, and government correspondence.
    • Proof should indicate involvement of a minority individual or group.
  • Predominant Purpose: The institution should primarily aim to benefit the minority community, even if it is not the sole purpose.
    • It is not necessary that education must be provided in the language spoken by the minority or in the religion of the minority.
  • Evidence of Minority Establishment: Private communications, speeches, and documents demonstrating the need for an institution for the minority community and recognition of the “educational difficulties” faced by the communities in question.
  • Implementation Details: Factors like funding sources, land acquisition, and foundational decisions should reflect minority community contributions.
• Administration Criteria
  • Administration by Minority Not Mandatory: The court held that the administration of an educational institution does not need to be handled by the minority community.
    • It was a matter of ‘choice’ for such an institution and it is not compelled to appoint persons from the minority community for day to day administration.
    • The Courts can look at the administrative set-up of the institution.
    • If the administration does not seem to “protect and promote the interests of the minority”, it could be “reasonably inferred that the purpose was not to establish an educational institution for the benefit of the minority community”.
  • Historical Administration Practices: For institutions that were established before the Constitution came into force (like AMU), the majority held that courts must look at how the administration worked “on the date of the commencement of the Constitution” (January 26, 1950) and whether any “regulatory measures” were used to “wrest” control from the founders.

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

• Reinforcement of Minority Rights: The ruling strengthens the constitutional protections under Article 30 for minority educational institutions.
• New Framework for Assessing Minority Status: The Court established a “holistic and realistic” test to determine the minority character of an institution. 
  • It looks at the institution’s origin, its purpose at formation, and how it was administered, especially on January 26, 1950, the date the Constitution came into effect. 
• Impact on AMU’s Minority Status: The ruling clears the way for AMU to be recognised as a minority institution, confirming that it was originally established to serve the educational needs of the Muslim community. 
  • With this Minority Status, the university can provide up to 50% reservation for Muslim students.
  • It need not adhere to general reservation policies applicable to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), economically weaker sections (EWS) under Article 15(5) of the Constitution.
  • AMU will have greater autonomy in managing its affairs, including admissions and staff appointments.
• Implications for Other Institutions: It provides a standardised framework for institutions with similar claims to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution.
  • The Court suggests that any regulatory changes made after the Constitution’s commencement (1950) that alter the institution’s original minority character could be scrutinised.
    • Institutions that underwent such changes may face challenges in maintaining their minority status
• Government Control and Funding: The judgement clarifies that government funding or control does not automatically negate an institution’s minority status, as long as it continues to serve the minority community’s educational and cultural needs. 
  • This could influence how the government interacts with and supports such institutions.

Way Forward

• Clear Guidelines for Minority Institutions: The Government could create a clear legislative framework based on the Supreme Court’s criteria for recognising minority institutions across India.
• Support for Institutional Autonomy: The government should ensure that institutions like AMU continue to benefit from the autonomy to run their educational and administrative programs while ensuring accountability. 
• Legal Clarity on Government Funding and Involvement: A legal framework should be established to clarify the extent to which state funding or other forms of support can be provided without compromising the institution’s minority status or autonomy.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

This verdict is historic as it reshapes the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution, and marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the rights of minority educational institutions in India.

DOWNLOAD PDF