​National minority: On the ruling on an institution’s ‘minority character’

The entitlement of religious and linguistic minorities to constitutional protection in India often gives rise to questions about how an institution’s ‘minority character’ is determined. Drawing on precedents and adding value of its own, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, by a 4:3 majority, has laid down the ‘indicia’ required for identifying a minority institution. Much of the focus has been on the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), which stands to gain by dint of this verdict in its efforts to vindicate its minority character, but it will only be a regular Bench that would take a call on its status. The AMU’s character is unique: it was established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875 as a teaching college for the benefit of Muslim students, and was recognised as a university by an Act of the Central Legislature in 1920. In the Constitution, it was referred to as an institution of national importance, along with the Benares Hindu University. A 1967 Supreme Court judgment held that it was not entitled to the benefit of being a minority institution under Article 30(1), as it was established by legislation and not by the Muslim community. Amendments brought in 1981 to the AMU Act sought to dilute the import of this verdict by changing some definitions. The current dispensation at the Centre argued in court that it was not a minority institution.

In a well-reasoned judgment, (the now former) Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has rightly ruled that the fact that a statute was enacted to confer university status would not remove the minority character of a pre-existing institution, and that the main criteria for identifying an institution’s status would be based on details such as who founded it, who made efforts to bring it into being, whether it was aimed at promoting the interests of that particular minority, and its administrative structure affirmed its minority character. Also, a statute was required to incorporate any university prior to the passage of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and it could not be argued that an institution surrenders its constitutional right in exchange for getting its degrees recognised. At least one dissenting judge, Justice Dipankar Datta, held that the AMU was not a minority institution. One aspect of this discussion is the scope for reservation in the AMU. If stripped of its minority character, it could be brought under the ambit of the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Whether an institution of national importance requires the minority tag is a valid question, but it is a matter of equal concern if a prestigious university identified with a distinctive educational and cultural ethos should be stripped of its original character. An ahistorical perspective unaided by any sense of context is unhelpful.