9 November 2024 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis

1. Defining Minority Character

(Source: Indian Express; Section: The Editorial Page; Page: 14)

Topic: GS2 – Polity

Context:

The article discusses the Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling affirming Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, which redefines minority rights and protection under India’s constitutional framework.

Protection of Minorities as a Civilizational Benchmark

• Protection of minorities is seen as a vital characteristic of any advanced society. Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized that democracies must fundamentally recognize minority rights, implying that societies thrive when they protect and respect diversity.
• This principle resonates in Indian jurisprudence, where the Supreme Court has shaped a progressive legal framework for minority rights.
• A landmark seven-judge bench judgment recently reinterpreted constitutional guarantees under Article 30, reaffirming the minority character of institutions like Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and laying out criteria for such classification.

Historical Development of Minority Rights Jurisprudence

• The Supreme Court’s journey in protecting minority rights started with the Kerala Education Bill case (1957), where Chief Justice S.R. Das advocated that minority institutions serve the communities that establish them, with limited admission for others.
• Over the decades, key cases like St. Stephen’s College (1992) and TMA Pai Foundation (2002) provided clarity on minority rights in education.
• However, the S. Azeez Basha (1967) judgment, which ruled against AMU’s minority status, has been criticized as overly narrow and formalistic, with legal scholar H.M. Seervai calling it “productive of great public mischief.”

Legislative Revisions and Judicial Interventions on AMU’s Minority Status

• Parliament’s amendment to the AMU Act in 1981 sought to affirm the university’s minority character by clarifying that it was established by Muslims.
• Despite this, the Allahabad High Court, in 2005, deemed certain amendment provisions unconstitutional, arguing they conflicted with the 1967 judgment.
• The recent Supreme Court decision overruled this narrow interpretation and acknowledged AMU’s foundational identity as a Muslim institution, emphasizing the importance of historical context over rigid statutory interpretation.

The 2019 Referral and the Landmark Verdict of 2024

• In 2019, the issue was escalated to a seven-judge bench, which delivered its decision on Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s final day. This judgment countered the claim that Muslims were not a minority at the time of AMU’s establishment, affirming that pre-constitutional institutions are also protected under Article 30.
• The court rejected the formalistic view taken in the 1967 judgment, opting instead to consider the community’s efforts in establishing AMU.
• The verdict stressed that statutory incorporation does not erase an institution’s minority character and underscored the importance of evaluating its origins and intent.

Distinguishing National Importance from Minority Status

• The majority view held that AMU’s designation as a national institution did not negate its minority character.
• Entry 63 of the Union List, which allows Parliament to legislate regarding AMU, does not mean a forfeiture of its minority identity. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that “national” and “minority” are not contradictory terms, supporting the idea that a minority institution can hold national significance.
• However, dissenting judges argued that AMU’s recognition as a national institution weakens its claim to minority status, introducing a contrasting perspective on the relationship between national importance and minority rights.

Liberal Interpretation of Article 30: Rights Beyond Administration

• In a forward-looking interpretation, the Chief Justice noted that minority institutions’ rights are intrinsic to their establishment rather than dependent on exclusive minority control.
• This liberal reading of Article 30 allows for administrative flexibility, countering earlier cases that required full control by the minority community.
• This broad interpretation sidesteps the significance of religious features within institutions, reflecting a modern approach to minority rights that accommodates diversity in administrative models.

Conclusion: Future Directions for AMU’s Minority Character

• The Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of Article 30 now guides the determination of AMU’s minority status, replacing the outdated criteria of the S. Azeez Basha decision.
• A three-judge bench will further evaluate AMU’s case, applying the new criteria and clarifying legal standards for minority institutions. This decision holds significance for future generations, ensuring that the rights of minority communities in educational institutions are both preserved and evolved in line with constitutional values.
• The Supreme Court’s verdict strengthens the legal framework supporting minority rights, marking a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional history.

What are Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Regarding Minority Communities?

Article 29: It provides that any section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same. It grants protection to both religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities. However, the SC held that the scope of this article is not necessarily restricted to minorities only, as the use of the word ‘section of citizens’ in the Article includes minorities as well as the majority. Article 30 (1) of the Constitution empowers all religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The SC stated that Article 30 of the Constitution is not to “ghettoise the minority”. This provision reinforces the Union government’s commitment to foster growth and development of minority communities by guaranteeing that it will not discriminate in giving aid on the basis of their status of Minority Institutions. Article 25: Article 25 of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Article 26: The Article 26 of the Indian Constitution provides every religious denomination (or any section of it) the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. Article 27: It sets freedom as to payment of taxes for the promotion of any particular religion. Article 28: It gives freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.

PYQ: Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSCJ) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine. (150 words/10m) (UPSC CSE (M) GS-2 2018)

Practice Question:  Examine how the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status reinterprets Article 30 of the Indian Constitution and its implications for the protection of minority rights in India. (250 words/15 m)