Daily Editorial Analysis

Universities are Different from Religious Institutions (GS Paper 2, Governance)

Context

• The ongoing legal discourse surrounding Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has brought the distinction between universities and religious institutions to the forefront.
• Particularly, the AMU case (2024) revisits the issue of its minority character, considering how much of the institution's identity and administration must be exclusively linked to the Muslim community to claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution.
• The judgment aims to clarify whether the university's status as a minority institution rests solely on its communal character or if broader constitutional protections apply.

Introduction: Historical Significance of AMU

• The M.A.O. College (established in 1877 by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan) and its evolution into Aligarh Muslim University represent a monumental chapter in the educational and cultural upliftment of the Muslim community in India post-1857.
• AMU has played a central role in promoting higher education for Muslims, and its legacy has been a symbol of both educational and socio-political development.
• However, the 1967 Supreme Court judgment in S. Azeez Basha declared that AMU was not a minority institution.
• This ruling had significant repercussions, as it dismissed the historical and cultural contribution of AMU to the Muslim community and its right to special constitutional protection.

Key Issues in the 2024 Judgment

The seven-judge bench in the 2024 AMU case has largely overturned the Azeez Basha (1967) judgment, aligning with more progressive views on minority rights under Article 30, though with some differing opinions among the judges. The case revolves around the following themes:

Minority Status and Administrative Rights

• • The judgment emphasizes that the right to administer an institution, once established by a minority, is inherent and a consequence of its establishment.
  • Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that this right is linked directly to the intent to establish and administer the institution, not merely to the statute under which it is created.

The Role of Statutory Provisions

• • Some dissenting judges in the past, such as in the 1967 judgment, gave excessive weight to the statutory provisions of the AMU Act, which was seen as determining whether the institution was "established" and "administered" by Muslims.
  • However, the 2024 judgment rejects this narrow interpretation and broadens the lens to focus on the holistic intent and practical functioning of the institution as a minority entity.
  • The incorporating statute (the AMU Act) alone is not sufficient to determine the university's minority character, as merely acknowledging the founder’s name or stipulating certain operational guidelines in the Act does not guarantee minority status.

The Minority Dominance Test

• • One of the key points of contention was the test of minority dominance, which suggests that a minority institution can claim minority rights only if it is exclusively or near-exclusively managed by the minority community.
  • The dissenting judges in the case took this position, but the majority judgment rejected it, noting that universities should not be equated with religious institutions.
  • The ghettoization of educational institutions in the name of minority character is not in line with the secular and inclusive values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 30, which protects the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

Government Control and Regulation

• • While government regulations for maintaining standards and efficiency in minority institutions are permitted, they should not be used to strip such institutions of their minority character.
  • The AMU judgment holds that government interference, when aimed at ensuring educational quality and fair access, does not undermine the right of minorities to administer their own institutions.

Judicial Discipline and Its Limits

• • The judicial discipline and precedent play a critical role in shaping legal interpretations, but it is crucial for the judiciary to adapt to changing societal contexts and needs.
  • The AMU case highlights how the Supreme Court, in line with past rulings (e.g., the Maneka Gandhi (1978) and K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgments), can evolve its approach to interpret constitutional provisions with flexibility.
  • The rejection of overly formalistic interpretations of previous decisions allows for a living, transformative understanding of fundamental rights.

The Importance of Intent

• • The majority judgment agrees that the intent to establish and administer an institution in a way that benefits the minority community is a key test for minority character.
  • This approach emphasizes the vision behind the creation of the institution, rather than focusing solely on the structural or statutory framework.
  • Justice Chandrachud's analysis of intent to administer is pivotal in recognizing that it is the goal and purpose of the institution that matter, not just its formal governance structures.

Justice Datta’s Unprecedented Approach

• In a particularly noteworthy move, Justice Dipankar Datta expressed a minority opinion in which he questioned the validity of certain judicial references and applied his own interpretation to the matter.
• His approach was seen as unprecedented because, despite acknowledging the majority's criteria, he independently concluded that AMU should be recognized as a minority institution.
• His argument led to controversy, particularly concerning his dismissal of the ₹30 lakh funding issue, which was historically tied to the establishment of the university.

Error in the Minority Character Test

• One of the contentious issues was the emphasis on the minority dominance test.
• The dissenting judges pushed for a narrow, exclusive interpretation, arguing that AMU could not claim minority character merely by being governed under a structure similar to other universities.
• However, this view was rejected by the majority, which emphasized that universities, unlike religious institutions, cannot be expected to exclusively cater to the community they represent.

Conclusion

• The 2024 AMU judgment marks a pivotal shift in the interpretation of minority rights in India, particularly in relation to educational institutions.
• While it has brought clarity to the issue of minority character, it also reinforces the distinction between universities and religious institutions.
• Universities, as per the Court, are intended to serve a larger societal role, and their minority status should not rest on exclusive community representation.
• This ruling strengthens the vision of secular, inclusive education and affirms that minorities, including Muslims, can establish institutions of national importance that contribute to the larger national fabric without being confined to a narrow communal identity.
• The AMU case, through its detailed legal scrutiny, sets the stage for further evolving our understanding of Article 30, ensuring that minority educational institutions are safeguarded, while also aligning with the broader constitutional ideals of secularism, equality, and inclusive growth.