Text

Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal

---

Facts: The landmark constitutional case of Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Naresh
Agarwal & Ors. arose in the context of a long-standing and deeply debated issue in Indian
constitutional and educational law—whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), one of India’s
most prominent central universities, qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution of India. This article provides religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The origins of the present dispute trace back to the establishment of the Muhammadan Anglo-
Oriental College in 1877 by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, a prominent Muslim reformist. The
College, founded with the purpose of modernizing Muslim education while preserving Islamic
values, was later transformed into AMU by the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920. The status
of AMU as a minority institution was challenged on the basis that it was established by an act of
Parliament, not by the Muslim community.
The controversy around AMU’s minority status was earlier settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1967), wherein it was held that AMU could not be
considered a minority institution since it was established by a statute. The 1981 amendment to
the AMU Act, however, attempted to rectify this view by declaring AMU as an institution
established by Muslims of India.


Issues:
1. Whether Aligarh Muslim University qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30(1)
of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India
(1967) needs to be reconsidered or overruled.
3. Whether the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act substantively changes the understanding
of the university’s establishment and its minority character.


Arguments – Petitioners’ Side (AMU & Ors.): The petitioners argued that AMU’s origins were
firmly rooted in the community-led efforts of Indian Muslims, with the Muhammadan Anglo-
Oriental College being their direct initiative to uplift the Muslim population through education.
The transformation into a university in 1920, while done by legislation, was a continuation of this
original community endeavor.
They asserted that denying AMU its minority status on the sole basis of the 1920 Act
contradicted the spirit of Article 30(1), which aims to protect minority rights and educational
autonomy. The 1981 amendment was defended as a clarificatory statute, aligning the law with
historical facts, rather than modifying the university’s foundational nature.
Further, it was argued that the minority community had retained a consistent role in AMU’s
administration and purpose and that any statutory formalization should not disqualify it from
claiming minority status. The petitioners contended that Article 30(1) protects the community’s
rights irrespective of the legislative form in which the institution is embodied.

Arguments – Respondents’ Side (Naresh Agarwal & Ors.): The respondents, supported by
the Union of India, maintained that the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 clearly
demonstrated that AMU was created by a central legislation and therefore, could not be said to
have been “established” by the minority community. They heavily relied on the binding
precedent of S. Azeez Basha, asserting that the decision continues to be sound law.
The respondents expressed that the 1981 amendment could not retrospectively transform a
statutory institution into a minority one. Further, they emphasized that AMU's character as a
central university funded by the government necessitated adherence to constitutional mandates
of equality and public accountability, including reservations and other regulatory frameworks.
Concerns were raised that granting AMU minority status could affect broader policy frameworks,
particularly with respect to reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes and compromise the secular fabric of central educational institutions.



Held: The seven-judge Constitution Bench delivered a split verdict, with a majority of 4:3 ruling
in favor of reconsidering AMU's minority status. The majority, led by then Chief Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, overruled S. Azeez Basha and held that statutory recognition of an institution
does not override the fact that it was originally established by a minority community.

The Court held that the focus should be on the origin, intent, and foundational purpose of the
institution, rather than the legal form in which it currently exists. AMU’s roots in the
Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which was a community-led initiative, were
acknowledged as critical to determining its character.
The majority ruled that merely because a statute formally recognized or incorporated a pre-
existing institution does not erase its foundational identity. Therefore, the 1920 Act was seen as
giving statutory shape to a Muslim-established institution, and the 1981 amendment was found
to support, not contradict, this history.
On the other hand, the dissenting judges- Hon'ble Mr. Justices Surya Kant, Hon'ble Mr.
Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr.Satish Chandra Sharma-upheld the reasoning in S. Azeez
Basha, holding that an institution created by an Act of Parliament could not be granted minority
status under Article 30(1). They emphasized legislative intent and argued that historical
developments could not override statutory frameworks.
Ultimately, the majority did not make a conclusive declaration on AMU's minority status but
remitted the matter to a regular bench for final adjudication using the clarified legal principles.

Conclusion: The decision in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal represents a
constitutional milestone in India’s educational jurisprudence. It signaled a broader, more liberal
interpretation of Article 30(1), allowing the courts to focus on the historical and community-led
origins of an institution rather than merely its statutory status.
The judgment reaffirms the idea that constitutional rights cannot be diluted by procedural or
technical barriers. It empowers minority communities to assert educational autonomy even
when their institutions have received later recognition or formalization through legislation.
The Court’s emphasis on “who established” and “for what purpose” reshapes how minority
rights in education are to be interpreted and applied. This has far-reaching implications for
similar institutions like Jamia Millia Islamia and others with community-based origins but
legislative recognition.
In conclusion, this judgment paves the way for balancing statutory frameworks with
constitutional freedoms, ensuring that historical truth and foundational intent are not lost in legal
formalities. It reinforces the principle that minority communities, when acting collectively to
promote education, do not forfeit their rights when their institutions are later incorporated by the
State.This case serves as a progressive development in protecting cultural, religious and
educational rights, thereby strengthening India’s democratic and pluralistic ethos.

---

Detail Information

Title

Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3213

Matter(s)

-

Councels

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India

Statement of Responsibility

DRISHTI SINGH /Shri Chintamani Smarak Vidhi Mahavidyalaya Pratapgarh Uttar Pradesh affiliated with Allahabad State University PRSU-Prayagraj

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment