In a significant ruling that impacts educational institutions across the country, the Supreme Court of India has made a clear statement regarding religious teachings in government-funded minority institutions. The apex court has stated that minority institutions, including those partially or fully funded by the government, cannot make religious education compulsory for their students.

This landmark decision was made by a bench that includes Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Sharma. The context of their remarks traces back to the 1951 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, 1920. This amendment had removed the compulsion of religious teaching specifically for Muslim students at AMU.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna emphasized a critical point in this judgment. He highlighted that any minority institution, irrespective of the percentage of government funding it receives – even if it's as low as one percent of their budget – can only offer religious teachings optionally. In other words, these teachings can only be made available to students who express a voluntary interest in them. This insight was reported by the Times of India, which covered the proceedings in detail.

The ruling also throws light on the establishment of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and its status as a minority institution. During the discussion, the solicitor general pointed out an important fact about AMU. He mentioned that the university's reserve fund had contributions from multiple communities, not just one, highlighting its inclusive character.

Moreover, the court observed that the historical identity of AMU, as a non-minority institution as defined in the AMU Act, remains unchanged. This means that its character cannot be modified based on considerations that emerged after the Indian Constitution was put in place. The solicitor general also drew attention to the substantial government grants received by AMU, underlining its national significance and its esteemed ranking among Indian universities.

This ruling is poised to have far-reaching implications for how religious education is approached in minority institutions across India. It reaffirms the principle that while religious education can be a part of these institutions, it cannot be imposed on all students.

Supreme Court To Examine Aligarh Muslim University's Minority Status

In a crucial development, the Supreme Court of India has decided to delve into the longstanding issue concerning the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). This decision was announced on Tuesday, marking a new chapter in the university's history.

The seven-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, is set to examine a pivotal question: Did the "denominational character" of AMU get lost when it was established as a university under the 1920 AMU Act? This inquiry is fundamental to understanding whether the AMU Act, 1920 led to the abrogation of its status as an institution governed by a religious minority.

A key observation made by the apex court is that merely being accorded the status of a university does not automatically lead to the forfeiture of its minority status. "What are the indicia (signs of the varsity having lost its minority status)? Later on we will again look at it to indicate that when it was conferred with the university status, that it surrendered its minority status. The mere fact that it was given university status does not amount to a surrender of the minority status," observed the bench. This bench includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The Chief Justice of India, during the fourth day of arguments, stated, "We have to independently see whether by the 1920 Act the denominational character of AMU was lost." This statement underscores the court's approach to independently assess the situation rather than drawing conclusions based solely on the university's status.

Furthermore, the court emphasized a well-established principle: an institution does not relinquish its minority status by seeking or receiving aid. "Because today there is a recognition that without aid no institution, minority or non-minority, can exist. Merely by seeking aid or being granted aid you don’t lose your right to claim your minority status. That is now very well settled," the court clarified.

CJI Questions Solicitor General

In a significant day-long hearing, Chief Justice of India, Justice D Y Chandrachud, questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, on the status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) under the 1920 legislation and its position on the eve of the adoption of the Indian Constitution. The Chief Justice inquired, “What happened between 1920 and January 25, 1950?” Solicitor General Mehta responded, stating, “My immediate answer is, between 1920 and the Constitution coming into force, there is no change in the Act. 1920 (Act) remains as it is. The first amendment comes in 1951.”

The 1920 Act

The 1920 Act, which is central to this discussion, was enacted to establish AMU as a teaching and residential Muslim university in Aligarh. It's noteworthy that in 1951, the AMU Act underwent an amendment that abolished the compulsory religious education that was previously provided to Muslim students by the university. This change raises questions about the university's character and identity over time. During the hearing, the bench asked the government's law officer, “Is the 1920 legislation also consistent with recognizing the pre-existing history of AMU… or does the 1920 Act itself result in the abrogation of any claim to minority status?”

Responding to this, Mehta referred to his written submissions and remarked that at the time of its inception in 1920, the university was predominantly national and non-minority in character. He pointed out, “In fact, the minority element was only present as an exception or a carve-out as opposed to the omnipresent non-minority character,” while referring to various provisions of the 1920 Act.

The bench also heard submissions from Attorney General R Venkataramani during the day. He provided an insightful perspective by saying, “In my understanding, this is not a case which has emanated from deprivation of Article 30 right.” Article 30 of the Indian Constitution is crucial in this context as it deals with the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

The bench stated, “The right under Article 30 in certain areas, as our law has evolved, may well be conditional or contingent upon provision of a regulatory statute.” This observation highlights the conditional nature of rights under Article 30, suggesting that compliance with regulatory provisions is essential.

Elaborating further, the court emphasized the importance of regulatory provisions in ensuring the maintenance of national standards in educational institutions. “Those regulatory provisions ensure that the true character of an institution as an institution of excellence, as our court has said repeatedly, is maintained. Second, that even minority institutions do not fall below the national standards,” the bench noted. This statement underscores the court's commitment to upholding educational excellence and uniformity in standards across all institutions, including those run by minorities.

An intriguing question was raised during the hearing regarding the contingency of the right to establish an institution on recognition by an enabling statute. Chief Justice Chandrachud inquired, “My question is can an institution say that when I establish a university, you must necessarily recognize my right to confer degrees without the provision of an enabling statute?”

Responding to this, advocate M R Shamshad, who argued in favor of AMU's minority status, acknowledged the role of regulatory provisions, stating, “No. There are regulatory provisions.” This response suggests that the establishment and operation of educational institutions, including the conferment of degrees, are subject to compliance with existing regulatory frameworks.

Toward the end of the day's proceedings, the bench inquired about the financial aspect of AMU's operations, specifically the recurring expenditure from 1920 to 1950 and its funding sources. Solicitor General Mehta responded, revealing that the expenditure was primarily borne by the government and currently stands at approximately Rs 1,500 crore annually.

The legal discourse surrounding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) remains unfinished and is expected to proceed on Wednesday. For many years, the question of AMU’s minority status has been enmeshed in legal complexities. The Supreme Court, on February 12, 2019, escalated this critical issue to a seven-judge bench for a thorough examination. This decision mirrored an earlier action, indicating the ongoing significance of this legal matter.

Delving into the history of this issue, a pivotal moment occurred in 1967. A five-judge constitution bench in the case of S Azeez Basha versus Union of India made a notable declaration. The bench ruled that AMU, being a central university, did not qualify as a minority institution. This judgment was a defining moment in the legal narrative of minority educational institutions in India.

However, this status was later altered when the Parliament introduced the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981. This legislative change reinstated the university's minority status, marking a significant turn in the institution's history.

But the legal journey did not end there. In January 2006, another major development occurred. The Allahabad High Court invalidated the provision of the 1981 law that granted AMU its minority status. This decision prompted responses from various quarters. The Congress-led UPA government at the Centre challenged the High Court's ruling by filing an appeal. AMU itself initiated a separate legal battle against this decision.

In 2016, a new government stance emerged. The NDA government, led by the BJP, communicated to the Supreme Court its intention to retract the appeal filed by the earlier UPA government. This move by the NDA government marked a notable shift in the government's approach to this ongoing legal issue.

AMU Gave Up Minority Status in 1920, Cannot Claim It Now: Centre Tells Supreme Court

In a significant development at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued on January 23 that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) relinquished its minority status with the enactment of the 1920 Act of Parliament. Consequently, he asserted, the university cannot claim this status currently.

SG Mehta detailed the unamended provisions of the 1920 AMU Act to demonstrate that the university possessed a national and non-minority character from its inception. He contextualized this by referring to the pre-independence era, where numerous institutions in India either chose to align or not align with the British Crown and either granted or did not grant British degrees. Among these institutions, AMU was identified as one that did align with the Crown. Mehta further argued that the founders of AMU were loyal to the British regime.

However, the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court offered a counterpoint. They noted that an institution's minority character is not invalidated merely because its founders were loyal to the British. The court's observation, “Founded by a minority does not mean you have to be in opposition to the government,” addresses the notion that political alignment does not necessarily impact an institution's minority status.

The government's position is that the passage of parliamentary legislation to establish a university endows it with a national character. As AMU was established by an Act of Parliament, the government contends that it should not be classified as a minority institution.

AMU’s Minority Status: A Historical and Legal Overview

Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was initially established in 1875 as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. In 1920, the British government in India enacted the AMU Act, a central legislation that transformed MAO and a few other colleges into a university.

The Indian government made two significant amendments to this law in 1951 and 1965. These amendments altered the structure of the university's governing body and authorized the President of India to nominate its members. These changes were subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court by an individual named Azeez Basha.

In a landmark judgment in 1967, a five-judge bench of the apex court upheld the amendments. The ruling stated that AMU was not a minority institution due to the central legislation governing it. However, in 1981, a new law was introduced that reinstated the university's minority status, allowing it to make reservations for the Muslim community in India.

Yet, the institution's minority status came under legal scrutiny again in 2005. The challenge arose after AMU reserved 50 percent of its post-graduate seats for Muslim minorities. The Allahabad High Court ruled against the university's minority status, leading the case to eventually reach the Supreme Court. In 2019, recognizing the significance and complexity of the issue, the matter was referred to a seven-judge bench, especially since a five-judge bench had already issued a ruling in 1967.

According to the central government, AMU holds a special status as stipulated in the Constitution of India, being deemed an “institution of national importance”. The government asserts that the Constitution does not categorize it specifically as a minority institution or otherwise.

Centre Tells Supreme Court AMU is a National University, Can't Claim Minority Status

In recent proceedings before the Supreme Court, the central government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, made a definitive assertion regarding Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The Centre argued that AMU cannot be considered a minority institution due to its national character.

This stance was presented in written submissions by the Centre through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. These submissions were made before a seven-judge Constitution Bench, which has undertaken the task of examining a batch of petitions. These petitions are focused on assessing the validity of the 1968 verdict by a five-judge bench that removed the minority status of AMU.

The central government's argument hinges on the assertion that AMU, having been declared an institution of national importance, cannot simultaneously be a minority institution. The written submission by Mehta states, "AMU is not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination as any university which has been declared an institution of national importance cannot be a minority institution."

"AMU has always been an institution of national importance, even in the pre-independence era. A survey of the documents surrounding the establishment of the Aligarh Muslim University, and even the then existing legislative position, enunciates that the AMU was always an institution having a national character,” the submission reads.

Furthermore, the Centre asserts that AMU cannot be categorized as a minority institution due to its status as defined by the Constitution of India. Mehta stated in his submission, “Aligarh Muslim University is not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination as any university which is declared by the Constitution of India to be of national importance should, by definition, cannot be a minority institution.”

In addition, the Centre's submission suggests that AMU should adhere to its secular roots and prioritize national interests. “It is submitted that a large national institute like Aligarh Muslim University ought to maintain its secular origins and serve the larger interest of the nation first,” the submissions state. The submission also notes that despite its national importance, AMU maintains a distinct admission process compared to other national institutions.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on crucial legal questions regarding the criteria for granting minority status to educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. This includes determining whether a university established by a parliamentary statute and funded by the central government, like AMU, can be classified as a minority institution.