(1.) Article 30 of the Constitution of India guarantees to religious and linguistic minorities, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain to the criteria to be fulfilled to qualify as a minority educational institution for the purpose of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.
(2.) In 1977, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College was established in Aligarh. The college was a teaching institution affiliated to the Calcutta University at first and subsequently to the Allahabad University. The imperial legislature passed the Aligarh Muslim University Act 1920.["AMU Act"] The enactment, as the preamble indicates, "established and incorporated" Aligarh Muslim University["AMU"]. The AMU Act was amended by the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act 1951["1951 Amendment Act"] and Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act 1965["1965 Amendment Act"]. The amendments related to the religious instructions of Muslim students[5] and the administrative set-up of the university[6]. Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution were instituted before this Court for challenging the constitutional validity of the 1951 Amendment Act and the 1965 Amendment Act. A Constitution Bench in the decision in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India[AIR 1968 SC 662] upheld the constitutional validity of the Amendments. The petitioners made a three-fold argument: (a) AMU was established by Muslims, who are a religious minority for the purposes of Article 30(1); (b) Article 30(1) guarantees Muslims the right to administer the University established by them; and (c) the 1951 and 1965 Amendments are violative of Article 30(1) to the extent that it infringed the right of the Muslim community to administer the institution. Article 30 is extracted below:
(3.) The Union of India opposed the petitions, arguing that the Muslim minority did not have the right to administer AMU since they had not established the institution. It was submitted that AMU was established by Parliament. That being the case, it was contended that the amendments were not violative of Article 30(1).