Institution Of National Importance Can Also Have Minority Character : Supreme Court In Aligarh Muslim University Case

The Supreme Court in its majority opinion in the Aligarh Muslim University case held that declaring an institution to be of 'National Importance' would not amount to eliminating its minority character.

AMU is Constitutionally recognized as “Institutions of National Importance” as per Entry 63 of List I..

Entry 63 List I reads: "The institutions known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Benares Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University established in pursuance of article 371E; any other institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution of national importance"

CJI DY Chandrachud in his decision addressed the contention raised by the Union, that AMU being an institution of National Importance, should reflect the national structure, especially from the lens of social justice. The Union had pointed out that the court should employ a more rigorous examination to designate an institution as a minority institution, given that such a classification would lead to the exclusion of SC/ST/ OBC reservations.

The Court in its majority decision held that "the declaration of an institution as one of national importance does not amount to a change in the minority character of the institution"

The CJI explained that the powers of the States or Union as specified under the Scheduled Lists and the Minority rights under Article 30 can exist overlappingly but the former does not outdo the latter constitutional status.

"The State may regulate various aspects of education and educational institutions. The field of legislative competence over universities does not amount to a surrender of minority character. The distribution of legislative competence between Parliament and the State legislatures does not bear upon the minority character of the institution."

'National' & 'Minority' Traits Can Coexist In An Institution: CJI DY Chandrachud Observes

The CJI, taking a holistic view of the matter, observed :

"A university may well be both national and ergo, of national importance, as well as minority in character. There is no reason why a minority educational institution cannot also be an institution of national importance."

He dissected the essence of the terms 'National' and 'Minority' from a socio-legal sense :

"Second, as a matter of principle, nothing prevents a minority educational institution from being an institution of national importance. The qualities denoted by the terms “national” and “minority” are not at odds with each other nor are they mutually exclusive. The former indicates that the institution has a pan-India or national character, as opposed to relatively more local or regional institutions. It is indicative of the importance of the institution on the national stage. The latter is evidence of the religious or linguistic background of the founders and the constitutional rights which vest in them. Each term indicates distinct attributes which are not antithetical to one another."

Article 30(1) Of The Constitution Cannot Be Subservient To Parliamentary Powers

The majority held that allowing an institution of national importance to be rid of its minority status would go on to mean that the fundamental right under Article 30(1) would stand diluted in face of such Parliamentary declarations.

Entries 63 and 64 allow Parliament to declare any institution as one of national importance. While Article 30(1) protects the rights of minority communities to establish and manage their own educational institutions.

Court analysed that imposing such a condition on Institutions of national importance would weaken the fundamental rights of the minority communities who may have established such institution in the first place.

"Entries 63 and 64 provide Parliament with the power to declare an institution to be of national importance. An interpretation that an institution of national importance cannot be a minority institution would amount to rendering the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) subservient to the legislative power of Parliament. Parliament can in terms of Entries 63 and 64 declare any institution to be of national importance. If the submission of the respondents is accepted, such a declaration would automatically exclude the institution(s) from the scope of Article 30(1)."

Other reports relating to the AMU Judgment 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

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 869

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment