Franklin Roosevelt rightly reminded us that “No democracy can long survive which does not accept as fundamental to its existence the recognition of the rights of minorities.”
The Apex Court of India has frequently illustrated through its jurisprudence on minority rights that safeguarding minorities is a defining characteristic of any civilization, beginning with the Kerala Education Bill Case (1957), a landmark decision that any constitutional court would regard with pride. S Azeez Basha (1967) stands as a notable anomaly that faced considerable criticism, with India's foremost expert on Constitutional Law, H M Seervai, characterizing it as 'productive of public mischief’.
The AMU case verdict on 8th November 2024, a seven-judge bench, by majority of 4:3, overruled a 56 year old judgement and laid down the indica to determine the minority character of an institution that had been left unanswered even by the 11 judge bench in TMA Pai Foundation (2002). In Anjuman-e-Rehmania (1981), a two-judge bench noted these criticisms and referred the matter to the Chief justice of India to constitute a seven-judge bench.
BACKDROP OF THE CASE
In 1967, the Supreme Court in S. Azeez Basha v Union of India held that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim community- it case into existence through an Act of the Central Legislature and did not , therefore, qualify as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution Of India.
The Indian Constitution provides a unique provision in Article 30, which grants minority communities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right, enshrined within the larger context of India's commitment to safeguarding diversity, allows linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and promote their cultural heritage through education. This provision is often seen as an embodiment of India’s secular principles, allowing minorities the freedom to ensure their unique identities are respected in a diverse and pluralistic society.
In 1981, the government amended the AMU Act 1920, to say that the institution was established by the Muslim community to promote the cultural and educational advancement of Muslims in India. In 2005, the Allahabad HC struck down the 1981 amendment on the ground that AMU was not a minority institution as per Azeez Basha.
MEIs AND THE NEED FOR THEIR PROTECTION
Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution grants minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This article ensures that minority communities can have institutions that cater specifically to their educational needs and uphold their cultural, religious, or linguistic values. Through Article 30, India upholds the right of minority communities to secure representation and identity within the education sector, protected from undue state interference.
Institutions of education set up under Article 30 frequently benefit from specific exemptions, especially regarding admissions and reservations, since they are not required to follow state-imposed quotas for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. This independence is regarded as crucial for preserving the unique identity of minority institutions, enabling them to foster education suited to their community’s unique needs.
Minority educational institutions significantly contribute to India’s educational and social framework. By supporting the needs of religious and linguistic minorities, these organizations enhance social inclusion, providing educational access to groups that have been historically overlooked. Minority institutions offer a space to maintain the distinct heritage, language, and cultural values of minority communities, encouraging an atmosphere of respect and diversity. They likewise aid in closing educational and socio-economic disparities by granting minority students access to quality education, thereby enhancing their social and economic mobility. Institutions such as AMU have played a role in fostering a skilled and informed community that benefits both the minority group it advocates for and the larger society.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on AMU represents an important advancement in the legal conversation related to Article 30. The case was resolved by a panel led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, including Justices S.K. Kaul, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. This ruling establishes a new “comprehensive and pragmatic” approach for assessing the minority status of an educational institution, shifting from a strictly literal understanding of minority rights. Instead, the court emphasized the need to examine whether an institution genuinely fulfills its purpose of serving a minority community through both its stated mission and actual practices. The judgment emphasized that the mere establishment of an institution by a minority group is insufficient to grant it MEI status. The court laid down several criteria, including the institution’s governance, admission policies, and the alignment of its daily operations with its professed minority objectives.
In the case of AMU, the Supreme Court applied this newly formulated test and upheld its minority status. The court found that AMU’s objectives and functioning align with its stated purpose of serving the educational needs of the Muslim community. It noted that AMU's governance framework, faculty makeup, and student population demonstrate a dedication to the institution’s core objectives, thus validating its classification as a minority institution. This ruling reversed earlier decisions, including the 2006 Allahabad High Court judgment, which had challenged the minority status of AMU. By applying the new test, the court recognized the institution’s long-standing role in promoting minority welfare and preserving Muslim cultural values within a secular framework.
MINORITY CHARACTER
The majority decision, authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for himself and Justices Khanna, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra, listed, “core essentials” of minority character under Article 30(1).
- While the purpose of establishing a minority institution should be conservation of language and culture, it need not be the only purpose;
- A minority institution will not lose its minority character by admitting students belonging to non-minorities;
- Secular education can be imparted at a minority institution without affecting its minority character;
- If a minority institution has received aid from 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.
THE TEST
The Supreme Court’s minority character test involves a nuanced approach that considers the founding purpose, operational practices, and day-to-day management of an institution. This method reflects a pragmatic understanding of how minority institutions function in a modern, secular state. The test requires courts to examine whether the institution was genuinely established to serve a minority group and whether it has consistently adhered to that purpose. This includes evaluating the institution’s governance policies, its admission criteria, and how these align with its minority objectives. The judgment acknowledges that educational institutions must not only declare their minority status but also demonstrate a sustained commitment to their minority objectives. This “holistic and realistic” test represents a shift from previous interpretations, allowing for a more flexible and context-sensitive evaluation of minority institutions.
ESTABLISHMENT:
The court emphasized that the origin of the institution matters significantly. It is essential to assess whether the institution was established with the specific purpose of serving the educational needs of a minority community. If the institution’s objectives or foundational goals reflect a commitment to uplift and preserve a particular minority, this factor supports its minority status.
It is emphasized in the judgement that, the Court must “Trace the origin of the idea for the establishment of the institution” to determine who was the “brain behind the establishment”.
ADMINISTRATION:
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 institution, and is not compelled to appoint persons from the minority community for the day to day administration.
That said, the majority held that the courts can look at the administrative set up to see if it affirms the minority character of an institution. If the administration does not seem to protect and promote the interests of the minority, it could be reasonably inferred that the purpose as not to establish an educational institution for the benefit of the minority community.
The implications of this judgment extend beyond AMU, potentially affecting the status of other minority institutions across India. The Supreme Court’s approach underscores the need for minority institutions to operate transparently and in alignment with their stated purpose to retain their special status under Article 30. By setting a benchmark for evaluating MEIs, the ruling strengthens the autonomy of institutions genuinely committed to serving minority communities, while also ensuring accountability. This decision provides minority institutions with a clear framework within which they can manage their operations without undue state interference. Additionally, the judgment strikes a balance between minority rights and the state’s duty to ensure that these rights are exercised in a manner that serves the broader public interest.
The majority of judges rejected the argument against AMU’s minority character because it was mentioned as an institution of national importance in the Constitution. The court said Entry 63 of the Union List empowers the Parliament to enact regulations in respect to AMU and does not amount to the surrender of its minority character. The CJI observed that the terms “national” and “minority” are not at odds to each other. A minority institution can also be one of national importance.
In the most liberal interpretation of Article 30, the CJI observed that to determine minority character, it is not necessary that the administration must be vested in the minority itself. The right to administer is the consequence of the establishment of the institution.
The Supreme Court’s decision on AMU has not been without its criticisms. Some argue that the ruling could potentially create challenges for minority institutions that seek to provide a secular education while also preserving their religious identity. Balancing secular educational standards with cultural preservation is often a delicate task, and critics fear that the new test may inadvertently push institutions toward conforming strictly to minority objectives, at the expense of a more inclusive approach. Additionally, there are concerns about access and inclusivity. Critics argue that while MEIs promote minority representation, they may restrict access to students from other communities, potentially raising questions about inclusivity and equal opportunity in education. Moreover, the decision may influence future policies regarding reservations and affirmative action in MEIs, as Article 30 institutions are generally exempt from such requirements.
Looking ahead, the “holistic and realistic” test introduced by the Supreme Court is likely to shape the future of minority educational institutions in India. Institutions seeking MEI status will need to ensure that their operational and administrative practices align with their declared minority objectives. The ruling also emphasizes the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing minority institutions to ensure they remain true to their stated mission, while the government may be encouraged to implement policies that reinforce these guidelines. This judgment could prompt new legislative debates about the interpretation of Article 30, potentially leading to amendments that further clarify the criteria for determining MEI status and safeguard minority rights in education.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment on AMU represents a landmark decision in the ongoing dialogue surrounding Article 30 and minority rights in India. By introducing a more flexible and context-sensitive test for assessing the minority character of educational institutions, the ruling has reaffirmed the importance of minority rights while emphasizing accountability. For AMU, the decision not only secures its minority status but also highlights its role in promoting minority welfare within a secular educational framework. The ruling carries wider significance for India's education system, establishing a clearer legal framework for minority institutions and promoting a more inclusive educational approach. In a diverse society like India, where secular values and minority rights coexist, this ruling reflects the changing landscape of constitutional law and the nation’s dedication to pluralism and diversity.
A three-judge bench will now determine the minority character of AMU, will no longer be constrained by Basha. It will be bound to apply the indica laid down by the majority on November 8, 2024. Since the Allahabad HC’s judgements of 2005 was based on the apex court’s 1967 judgement, they no longer have much significance, though appeals against them are pending with the Supreme Court
#BEYONDBASHA
Sources:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtZlYzQ7Kok
- Indian Express Articles and Explanations
