Aligarh Muslim University: Seven-Judge Bench of Supreme Court to decide on criteria for minority status

The Supreme Court has referred the question regarding criteria for conferring minority status on educational institutions to a Bench of seven Judges. The order was passed by a three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi with Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna in the case concerning minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)..The Bench chose to refer the matter to a seven-judge Bench noting that the issue was earlier referred to a seven-judge Bench but remained unanswered..The AMU was held to be a Central University by Supreme Court in the 1968 case of S Azeez Basha vs Union of India wherein the Court had ruled that the University was set up through a Parliamentary Statute and thus, a minority status under Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution cannot be conferred upon the University..Subsequently, the issue which arose in S Azeez Basha was referred to a seven-judge Bench by an order of the Supreme Court dated November 26, 1981 in the case of AnjumaneRahmania & Ors. vs. Distt. Inspector of School & Ors..The above writ petition of Anjuman eventually came to be heard along with other connected cases by an eleven-judge Bench in the landmark case of TMA Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 48]..The question which was formulated for an answer in TMA Pai Foundation case was the same question which had been formulated in Anjuman. It read as follows:.“What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority educational institution because it was established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or its being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority?”.However, the Bench in TMA Pai did not answer the question stating that it will be dealt with by the Regular Bench. The Regular Bench also did not answer the question formulated in TMA Pai..Meanwhile, after the Azeez Basha judgment, the minority status of the AMU was reinstated by bringing in an amendment to the AMU Act. The same was challenged before the Allahabad High Court which ruled against the amendment in 2006 and held that it was unconstitutional..The appeals against this judgment are now pending before the Supreme Court..When the matter came up for hearing on February 12, the Court observed that the correctness of the question arising from the Court’s decision in Azeez Basha remains undetermined..“The said facts would show that the correctness of the question arising from the decision of this Court in S Azeez Basha(supra) has remained undetermined.”.The Court also observed that the 2010 amendment of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act would also need an “authoritative pronouncement.”.Considering the fact that question was already heard by a Bench of seven judges earlier, the Court instead of placing the matter before a five-Judge Bench proceeded to refer it to a seven-Judge Bench..“Ordinarily and in normal course the judicial discipline would require the Bench to seek a reference of this matter by a Five Judge Bench. However, having regard to the background, as stated above, when the precise question was already referred to a Seven judge Bench and was, however, not answered, we are of the view that the present question, set out above, should be referred to a Bench of Hon’ble Seven Judges.”.Read the Order below.