Article 30 Not Intended To Ghettoise Minorities, Minority Institution Can Include Others In Administration: Supreme Court In AMU Case Hearing [Day 3]

While hearing the reference related to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University, the Supreme Court on Thursday (January 11) orally remarked that the protection of a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) is not lost merely because the minority community involves others in the administration.

"The object of Article 30 is not to ghettoise the minorities. So if you let other people associate with your institution, it doesn't detract from your character as a minority institution", observed Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is presiding over the seven-judge bench hearing the reference.

Emphasising the word "choice" used in Article 30(1), CJI said that the minorities are given a choice to either administer the institute themselves or get it done by others.

"Article 30 does not mandate that the administration has to be by the minority itself. What Article 30 contemplates and recognises is the right, mainly the right of choice, the discretion given to minorities to administer in a manner which they deem appropriate," CJI said. "The essential element of Article 30 is the conferment of choice on the minority," CJI added.

CJI had made similar remarks during yesterday's hearing as well. "The mere fact that some part of the administration is also looked after by non-minority candidates who have a representation voice by virtue of their service/ association with the institution in that sense will not dilute the minority character of the institution...Once the choice in setting up an education institution is recognised, the choice is yours as a minority. You have to establish it yourself if you want to get the benefit of Article 30. If someone else wants to administer your institution you can challenge that. But the extent that you want to cede the right of the administration to others is your choice again," CJI stated.

In response to the CJI's comments today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the AMU Old Boys Association, said that he himself was a part of the governing body of St.Stephen's College in Delhi. Most of the governing body members of St.Stephen's were non-minority people, Sibal added.He pointed out that minorities may not possess expertise in dealing with all aspects of administration and may have to involve others. The genesis and hisorical antecedents of an institute are the relevant tests in determining its minority status.

The bench also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma is hearing a reference arising out of 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which held that AMU was not a minority institution.  In 2019, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a 7-judge bench. One of the issues which arise in the case is whether a University, established and governed by a statute (AMU Act 1920), can claim minority status. The correctness of the 1967 judgment of the Supreme Court in  S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India (5-judge bench) which rejected minority status of AMU and the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to the University, also arise in the reference.  

Today is the third day of the hearing. Reports of hearings of the previous days can be read here and here. Live updates from today's hearing can be read here.

Case Details : ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR FAIZAN MUSTAFA vs. NARESH AGARWAL C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters