PROFESSOR FAIZAN MUSTAFA, noted Constitutional expert and Vice Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, in an interview with MOHD NAUSHAD KHAN, said the three-judge bench will decide as per the yardsticks laid down by the majority. “No one can with certainty predict the outcome of any bench. It would all depend how AMU argues its case,” he said.
What is your reading from the SC judgment on AMU minority status case?
It is a historic win for minority rights in general and AMU in particular. The decision aligns with the university’s core principles i.e. a minority character with extremely liberal and secular outlook. The judgment will make it easier to prove that AMU is a minority Institution.
The Supreme Court has clarified the ambiguity surrounding legislation by establishing criteria for the recognition of minority institutions, overruling its judgment of 1967. In December 1981, Parliament amended the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 and clarified the doubts about the word “establish” in the long title and preamble of the original Act by deleting it. It explicitly declared in Section 2 (L) that AMU was established by the Muslims of India as an institution of their choice, which had originated as MAO College and was subsequently incorporated. This law is now valid law as it is no more in the teeth of any judgement and Parliament has correctly narrated the historical evolution of AMU.
Has the judgement redefined the status of minority institution in India or do you believe it would be too early to make any final conclusion?
Law is an interesting subject. We can never be sure of what new interpretation may be given to any law. The majority decision comprehensively overruled AzeezBasha; there were certain aspects of the judgment that received unanimous agreement from the entire bench. The phrase ‘educational institution’ as stated in Article 30 encompasses universities. In a related case in 2005, a single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court determined that minorities possess the right to establish only deemed universities as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Additionally, the High Court concluded that the term ‘minorities’ applies solely to natural persons, excluding juristic entities. Institutions that existed prior to the Constitution are also entitled to the protections afforded by Article 30. The terms ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ within Article 30 should be interpreted conjunctively, meaning that minorities can assert their right to administer institutions only if they have also established them. MAO College, founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1877 to promote the educational development of Muslims, easily qualifies as a minority institution. Furthermore, it served as the foundation and nucleus for Aligarh Muslim University. The Muslim community contributed Rs.30 lakh to facilitate the transformation of the college into a university. University and MAO college have same identity and character as AMU has inherited all rights and liabilities of MAO College.
For the first time in Indian judicial history, the Court laid down the following indicia to determine whether an institution is a minority institution: Ideation: The Court asked to look at the genesis, ideation or brains behind the initiative. The person taking the initiative must belong to a minority group. Purpose: The intent must be to establish an institution “predominantly for the minority community.” Justice Sharma agreed with the majority on this point. Implementation: Other factors to be taken into account would include: collection of funds, how land was obtained, construction of buildings and governmental approvals. The presence of religious symbols or religious instructions is not necessary as fully aided minority institutions may not have religious instruction due to the prohibition in Article 28. In his opinion, Justice Surya Kant highlighted almost similar factors.
Administration and control: The majority held that it was not necessary for the administration to entirely vest in the minority; the right to administer is the consequence of establishment.
According to CJI Chandrachud, “to do otherwise would amount to converting a consequence to a pre-condition.” Though the administrative structure should reflect the minority character, the community need not exclusively control the institution and may take the help of other communities in governing its institutions. Neither the student body nor teaching staff has to be exclusively from the minority community. The administrative structure is to be examined on 26 January 1950 but the minority character should be assessed at the time of establishment and thus in AMU’s case in 1877.
The analysis of the opinions reveals a complex interplay of agreements and disagreements, suggesting that there are more areas of overlap and shared understanding than may initially be perceived. The establishment of criteria for evaluating minority status is likely to have significant consequences for future legal interpretations. There appears to be a general agreement that the regular bench is poised to affirm AMU’s minority designation. Justice Dutta referred to this as “a rewriting of history,” yet he acknowledged that the “recognition of AMU by this Court as a minority educational institution is merely a matter of time.”
How can we be assured that the three judge Bench will decide on the line drawn by the seven-judge Bench?
The three-judge bench will decide as per the yardsticks laid down by the majority. No one can with certainty predict the outcome of any bench. It would all depend on how AMU argues its case. They have quite a job and must prepare well.
What suggestion would you like to give to all the stakeholders when the case is before the three-judge Bench?
To all stakeholders, all I would like to suggest is to have faith in the bench and put good arguments. Legal battles should be fought with great passion. It is the duty of the client to help their advocates and help them fine-tune the arguments.