THE NEED TO EMPOWER MINORITY SECTS IN EDUCATION (DAY 2)

Last Updated on January 11, 2024 by News Desk

Introduction:

The Supreme Court clarified that Article 30 of the Constitution, granting minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, does not intend to segregate any religious community. The statement came during the ongoing hearing on the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasized that institutes under Article 30 can admit students from various religious communities, rejecting the notion of ghettoization.

Issues:

The key legal questions revolve around the criteria for an educational institution to attain minority status under Article 30 and whether a centrally-funded university, like AMU, established by parliamentary statute, can claim minority institution status. The case was referred to a seven-judge bench in 2019, challenging the 1968 Azeez Basha case that held AMU as a Central University without minority status. The subsequent reinstatement of minority status through a 1981 amendment and its constitutional validity are at the center of the current dispute.

Reasoning:

Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that Article 30 aims to avoid the isolation of minorities and supports the inclusion of students from diverse religious backgrounds in minority institutions. Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, representing AMU, argued that the right to administer is not confined to the minority alone, suggesting that the board of administration could have a Hindu majority. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the 1981 Amendment Act did not restore minority status but conferred it for the first time, challenging the perception created by the Azeez Basha case.

The bench discussed the broader implications of overturning the Azeez Basha judgment, considering its impact on the 1981 Amendment Act and the Allahabad High Court’s order. The possibility of giving a declaration on AMU’s minority status, irrespective of the Azeez Basha ruling, was suggested. Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid argued for a liberal interpretation of primordial rights, emphasizing the crucial role of AMU in nurturing an educated Muslim middle class in India.

Conclusion:

The ongoing hearing on AMU’s minority status raises significant legal and constitutional questions regarding Article 30. The Supreme Court’s clarification underscores the inclusive nature of minority institutions, challenging the perception of isolation. The debate also delves into the historical context, amendments, and the impact of previous judgments on AMU’s status. The final decision will likely have far-reaching implications on the recognition and functioning of minority educational institutions in India. The hearing is set to continue on January 23.

Written by — Athi Venkatesh