CITATION: 1968 AIR 662
PARTIES : Azeez Basha and anr. and Union of India
JUDGES: J.Wanchoo, J.Bachhawat , J.Ramaswami, J.Mitter, J. Hegde.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/10/1967
INTRODUCTION
India, with its amalgamation of diverse cultures and religions present unique and distinctive landscape. There are different populations following different religions and cultures. Generally, the people who are less in number than the dominant community following a different religion or speakers of different language, are called as minority. The Constitution of India stands out globally for vesting unparalled rights to religious and linguistic minorities. It addresses this diversity in a way that resonates with everyone, empowering minorities which may have seemed unprecedented.
One such clause that guarantees minorities’ rights to security and protection is Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. It stipulates that minority groups in India are entitled to create and run any kind of school they like. In order to maintain the integrity and unity of the nation and to guarantee equality among the groups, this privilege is granted to minorities on the basis of their religion or language. Azeez Basha is a landmark judgement in this concern. The case revolves around the minority character of the prestigious educational institutions, The Aligarh Muslim University, origin of which can be traced back to Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1877.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Considering the backwardness of Muslims, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan started Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College as a teaching institution for an educational upliftment of Muslim community. He dreamt to convert this college into a University where western and cultural education can be imparted into the students. In reference to the idea of establishing a University, the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 was passed by the Government of India.
After India got independence from British colony, the 1920 Act was amended so as to conform to the Constitution of India. In 1951, the Aligarh Muslim University (amendment) Act was enacted, bringing changes opto the 1920 Actdue to implementation of the constitution. Section 13 and 14 were modified, replacing Lord Rector with a visitor, whi assumed the powers of visiting board. The proviso to Section 23(1) was removed, allowing non- Muslims to be the members of the court.
Further changes occurred by the Aligarh Muslim University Amendment Act, 1965. These amendments reduce the supreme governing authority of the University Court, transferring many powers to the Executive Council. The court transformed into a body appointed by the visitor, leading to cessation of office for those in service before the promulgation of the Ordinance.
Some of the muslims went to the Supreme Court to challenge the Amendment Act of 1965 and 1951 which later get prominence as the Azeez Basha Case.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
The petitioners contested the constitutional validity of the 1951 and 1965 Acts based on the following grounds:
- The Muslim minority, as founders of the University, claimed the right to administer it under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The amendments were alleged to infringe upon this right.
- Even if the minority did not establish the University, they argued that they had the right to administer it as an educational institution, which they had been doing since its establishment.
- The right of the Muslim minority under Article 26(a) to maintain the University for charitable purposes was purportedly violated.
- The right of the Muslim minority as a religious denomination under Article 26(c) and (d) to administer the movable and immovable property of the University was claimed to be infringed.
- The petitioners argued that the amended provisions differed from statutes creating other universities, resulting in a violation of Article 14.
- The Muslim minority asserted that their right under Article 19 to manage the University and hold its property had been deprived.
- It was contended that the Muslim minority had been deprived of their property (the University’s vested property) due to substantial changes in the Court’s composition after the 1965 Act, violating Article 31(1).
- The petitioners claimed violations of Article 25 (the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion) and Article 29 (the right to conserve language, script, or culture) for the Muslim minority.
DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT
(1)The Aligarh University, neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority, renders Art. 30(1) inapplicable, as this Article pertains to the right of religious communities to establish and administer educational institutions. The term “establish” in Art. 30(1) implies bringing into existence, and it includes universities. The Aligarh University, established under the 1920 Act, was not initiated by the Muslim minority, but by legislative action. The Act was enacted due to the efforts of the Muslim minority, yet the University, as created by the 1920 Act, must be attributed to the Central legislature. The conversion of the M.A.O. College into the University was not a deed of the Muslim minority; it was brought into existence by the legislative act of the 1920 Act.
(2) The provisions of the 1920 Act counter the argument that the Muslim minority administered the University. The administration of the University was vested in various bodies, including the Lord Rector, the Visiting Board, and other statutory bodies created by the 1920 Act, whose members were not exclusively Muslims. The administration was not solely in the hands of the Muslim minority, with specific restrictions only in the Court of the University, where a bar existed only for non-Muslim appointments.
(3) Even if educational institutions fall under Art. 26(a) as charitable purposes, the right granted by Art. 26(a) cannot be claimed by the Muslim minority unless the institution is established and maintained by them.
(4) Article 26(c) and (d) grant power to a religious denomination to own and acquire property, but the Muslim minority cannot claim such rights as they voluntarily surrendered any property to the Aligarh University under the 1920 Act. As of the Constitution’s enforcement, the Muslim minority did not own any property vested in the University.
(5) Article 14 does not necessitate uniformity in every University Act, as each university is a class in itself with unique problems, and it is within the Legislature’s purview to decide its constitution.
(6) Article 19(1)(c) does not grant the right to manage any specific educational institution, and Art. 19(1)(f) does not affect the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. The 1965 Act does not infringe on these rights.
(7) There is no breach of Art. 31(1) since the 1965 Act did not deprive the Muslim minority of property ownership, as it was vested in the Aligarh University after the 1920 Act.
(8) The amendments by the 1965 Act do not affect the Muslims’ rights under Art. 25 to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, nor do they impact their rights under Art. 29 to conserve their language, script, or culture.
JUDGEMENT
The Court, led by Chief Justice Wanchoo, addressed five writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, No. 62 of 1951, and the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, No. 19 of 1965. The primary contention was based on Article 30(1), asserting the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The petitioners argued that the Aligarh University was established by the Muslim minority, granting them the right to administer it. The Acts of 1951 and 1965 were deemed ultra vires Article 30(1) for allegedly infringing on this right.
The Union of India retorted that the Aligarh University was founded in 1920 by the Aligarh Muslim University Act, No. XL of 1920, and that the Government of India had enacted legislation to that effect rather than the Muslim minority. Thus, under Article 30(1), the Muslim minority was unable to assert a basic right to run the University. The government further maintained that Parliament could change the 1920 Act for educational purposes, and that the 1951 and 1965 amendments were legal since they preserved the rights of the Muslim minority, which was not responsible for the establishment of the university.The government also asserted that the provisions of the 1920 Act regarding the composition of the Aligarh University’s Court being entirely Muslim didn’t grant the Muslim community the right to administer the University, as it had been administered by authorities established by the 1920 Act. Additionally, the government contended that the attacks based on other constitutional articles lacked substance and didn’t render the Acts of 1951 and 1965 unconstitutional.
The Court, at this stage, did not delve into the detailed response of the Government of India, reserving it for consideration when necessary.
The court clarified that individuals associated with the M.A.O. College, the Muslim University Association, and the Muslim University Foundation Committee aimed to establish a university in Aligarh. However, they recognized that if they formed a university independently, its degrees might not be acknowledged by the government. Hence, they sought government assistance to establish a university whose degrees would be recognized. The court acknowledged that the M.A.O. College and associated institutions were likely established by the Muslim minority.
The judgment emphasized that the Aligarh University was brought into existence by the Central Legislature through the 1920-Act, as it couldn’t have been established otherwise. Since the university’s establishment was attributed to the Central Legislature, the Muslim minority couldn’t claim the right to administer it under Article 30(1), which protects educational institutions established and administered by a minority. The court concluded that any amendment to the 1920-Act, through which the university was established, would fall within the legislative power of Parliament, provided it complied with constitutional provisions. As the Aligarh University wasn’t established by the Muslim minority, no amendment to the Act could be deemed unconstitutional under Article 30(1).
DEFECT OF LAW
This case’s main legal dispute centers on how to interpret Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which gives minorities the freedom to found and run any kind of school they like. The court found that the Central Legislature, not the Muslim minority, was responsible for the establishment of the Aligarh Muslim University, which was founded under the 1920 Act. This finding gives rise to a legal defect. This interpretation restricts the application of Article 30(1) by eliminating the minority’s historical efforts and affiliation with the founding of the university as grounds for their claim to run the institution.
The defect could be perceived in the narrow construction of the minority’s rights under Article 30(1), seemingly disregarding the historical context of their involvement in the establishment of the university. The judgment raises questions about the extent to which a minority must be directly involved in the founding of an educational institution to claim the right of administration under Article 30(1). This limitation might be seen as impinging on the broader spirit of minority rights protection envisaged by the Constitution.
ANALYSIS
The historical initiative to build the Aligarh Muslim University and the ensuing modifications to its governing Act are at the centre of the dispute. A strong desire to build a university in Aligarh was stated by members of the Muslim University Foundation Committee, the Muslim University Association, and the M.A.O. College. Recognizing that independently founded institutions might not receive official government recognition, these organizations appealed for government support to guarantee that the degrees of the imagined university would be recognized. The court’s ruling stressed that the Central Legislature’s 1920 Act, which reflected government intervention to ensure the university’s degrees were recognized, was what initially brought Aligarh University into being. Crucially, the court held that since the university was not established by the Muslim minority but by the Central Legislature, the minority couldn’t claim the right to administer it under Article 30(1), which protects educational institutions established and administered by a minority. The analysis underscores the historical context of government involvement in educational institution formation and the court’s interpretation of Article 30(1) within the specific circumstances of the Aligarh University’s origin.
CONCLUSION
In considering the facts, judgment, and the identified defect of law in the Aligarh Muslim University case, it becomes evident that the legal intricacies revolve around the interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The historical context reveals the active involvement of entities associated with the Muslim minority in the establishment of the Aligarh University. However, the court’s judgment takes a narrow view by emphasizing the role of the Central Legislature in bringing the university into existence. The defect of law lies in the restrictive interpretation of minority rights under Article 30(1). The judgment’s determination that the university was not established by the Muslim minority, but by legislative intervention, raises concerns about the extent to which minorities can claim administration rights under the article. This limitation appears to curtail the spirit of constitutional safeguards for minority rights in educational institutions.
In conclusion, while the judgment upholds the legislative authority in university establishment, it may be seen as overlooking the active historical participation of the Muslim minority. The defect in law arises from the potential restriction of minority rights, prompting a need for nuanced considerations in balancing constitutional provisions, historical context, and legislative authority
REFERENCE
Author - Syeda Bintul Huda