CASE ANALYSIS – Azeez Basha v. Union of India 

INTRODUCTION:-

This case is a landmark judgment namely S. Azeez Basha and anr. Vs. Union of India (1968) which was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In this case it directed toward the intersection of constitutional rights of minorities under Article 30(1). The petitioners represented the members of the muslim community and challenged the constitutional ground and limitations of the amendments to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. This case raises the foundational question of what it really means to “establish and administer” under the Indian Constitution. This judgment makes a significant precedent in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and interprets the scope and limitations of minority rights. 

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

1. The Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental was established in1877 under Allahabad University for educational upliftment of Muslim community.
2. The idea of establishing Muslim university formed the Muslim university association thereafter it collected 30 lakhs to establish the university, and the association started collecting it.
3. It was then established by the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. 
4. The Sections 3 & 4 of the act shows that Muslim Anglo Oriental College, Muslim University Association and Muslim University Foundation committed legally came to end and all these three bodies voluntarily surrendered their properties (both movable and immovable) to the Aligarh University
5. And the section 23 of the Act says that the constitution of the court of the university and section 23(1) says that no person other than Muslim could be member of the court of the university following that 23(2) says that the court of the university was to be the supreme governing body of the university. And the sub section 3 of this act had given power of making statutes for the university.
6. Section 13 provided that the Governor General of India to be the Lord Rector of the University and Section 14 says that the Governor of the: United provinces, the member of the executive council, the Ministers, one member nominated by the Governor and one member nominated by the Minister in charge of education to be the visiting board of the University. These persons were not necessarily Muslims but they had power over administration overriding those of the court of the University.
7. In 1951 the Aligarh Muslim Amendment Act, 1951 was passed and it made several changes into the previous act like Section 13 & 14 are amended that in the place of the Lord Rector, the University was to have a visitor and the powers of the visiting board were conferred on the Visitor. The provision 23(1) was deleted, that the non- Muslims could also be the members of the Court of the University.
8. In the further amendments the court of the University no longer remained the supreme governing body. Many powers were taken away and those of Executive Council were increased. The court became body nominated by the visitor and any person holding office before the ordinance was promulgated ceased to hold office from the said date, until the court was reconstituted. The Visitor could direct any university officer to exercise the court’s powers and duties.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:-

That the petitioners argued that the 1951 and 1965 Acts were unconstitutional based on several grounds: 

(1) That whether The Muslim minority established the University and had the right to administer it under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and the amendments were in violation of the Article.

 (2) Whether even if they did not establish it, they were entitled to administer the University as an education institution. 

(3) Whether their right to maintain the University for charitable purposes under the Art.26 (c) was also violated. 

(4) Whether The rights of Muslim minority as a religious denomination to ad-minister   the movable and immovable property of the University under Art.26 (c) and (d) was violated. 

(5) Whether the provisions of amended Acts differed from those of other statutes creating other Universities, and therefore violation of Art.14. 

(6) Whether the Muslim minority had been deprived of their right under Art.19 to manage the University and to hold the property which was vested in the University.

 (7) Whether the Muslim minority had been deprived of their property vested in the University, the court of the University after the 1965 Act was a body different from the court under the 1920 Act and thus there was violation of Art.31(1); 

(8) Whether the right of Muslim minority to profess and propagate their religion under Art.25 and, their right to conserve their language, script or culture under Art.29, were violated.

JUDGMENT:-

1. In this case the Supreme Court held that the Aligarh University, was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority and therefore there is no question of any amendment to the 1920 Act violating Art.30(1) for that Article does not apply to the University.
2. The words establish and administer in Article 30(1) of the constitution should be read conjunctively. This postulates that a religious community has the right to establish and administer educational institutions. Simply, where a religious minority establishes an educational institution, it will have the right to administer it, but not otherwise. The term “establish” means to bring into existence, and educational institutions include universities. But Muslims assuming they are minority based on religion, did not establish the University.
3. Before the University Grants Commission Act of 1966, there were no laws in India that prohibited and Private individual and body from starting a university, such entities did not mandate recognition of degrees by government, such recognition depended

REASONING:-

1. In this following case, the court analysed with several precedents deciding on the question raised in the issue of this article.
2. That in The Kerala Education Bill 1957,[1959] S.C.R. 995, it is explained that the Muslim minority could not claim any rights on the basis that the University was an eleemosynary corporation and that the minority were in the position of undator perficiens because (i) it is the donors (some of whom were non-muslims) and not the Muslim minority that could be said to be in the position of fundator perficiens. In the English Common Law the doners only have visitorial rights but those rights have been negatived by 1920 act specially such rights on the Lord Rector and the Visiting Board.
3. In the said schedule to the act, even though the members of the court had to be muslims, the electorate which elect the members of the court were not exclusively Muslims.
4. Article 26(a) of the constitution could not be claimed by the muslim minority, because the right to maintain under which right to administer included will only arise where the establishment of the religious minority institution.
5. That Article 26(c) & (d) give power to a religious minority to own and acquire movable and immovable property, and if it owns or acquires such property it can be administer it in accordance with constitution. Taking a note on this before 1920 property which was owned by the university was the property of the Muslim minority, it was voluntarily surrendered to the corporate body created by the 1920 act.
6. In the case of The Durgah Committee Ajmer Vs. Syed Hussain Ali [1962] 1 S.C.R. 383 it was held that Article 14 does not require that the provisions in every University Act must always be the same. And there can be no ground of discrimination that other university provide different set up.
7. In Article 19(c) it does not give any right to any citizen to manage any particular educational institution. And in 19(f) it does not give any citizen any right to hold property vested in the corporate body like university.

CONCLUSION:-

In the above mention case Supreme Court held that the constitutional interpretation of Article 30(1) that is holding that the right to administer an educational institution under the provision is contingent upon its prior establishment. The Apex court held that Aligarh Muslim University have been established by the act of central legislature in 1920 and was not a minority institution. The judgement helps us to understand that a institution created by State are subject to legislative law. It also affirms Parliament power to amend and restructure such universities  in the interest of governance. 

REFERENCES

1. S. Azeez Basha And Anr vs Union Of India on 20 October, 1967

Written by Kumar Aman an intern under legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.