S.

AZEEZ BASHA
AND ANR VS
UNION OF INDIA 
B E F O R E K . N . WA N C H O O , R . S . B A C H AWA T , V.
R A M A S WA M I ( I ) , G . K . M I T T E R A N D K . S . H E G D E , J J .
FA C T S

• The case here involves challenge to the constitutionality of the AMU Act 62 of the 1951 and Aligarh Muslim
University Act 19 of 1965.
• Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College was established by the Muslim community. Later a movement was
started to convert M.A.O college into a university for which Muslim University Association and the Muslim
University Foundation Committee were established by Muslims to arrange funds. Around 30 lakhs were
collected by the committees. In 1920 Government of India established the Aligarh Muslim University by 1920
Act. Existing M.A.O college was made basis for it and subsequently act for the administration along with all the
funds and properties attached to the college were given to the government
• The Government of India passed the 1951 act which made changes to the 1920 act::- (1). Removing section 9
which gave power to make religious teaching for Muslim students compulsory. (2) Section 23(1) which required
all members of the court to be Muslims was deleted.
• Subsequently in 1965 Act subsections (2) & (3) of Section 23 were deleted and court no longer remained
supreme body and powers were transferred more to the executive council. The amendments were made to make
rules more in consonance with the Indian constitution thus allowing grants for the university from government.
• The amendments as alleged by the petitioners infringed the fundamental right of Muslim community to establish
and administer educational institution guaranteed under article 30(1) of the Constitution of India . Subsequently
the petitioners alleged the two acts for violating of their fundamental rights under Articles 14,19,25,26,29,31 of
the Constitution.
ISSUE
• Whether the Aligarh University was established by the Muslim minority ?
• Whether the right to administer it ever vested in the minority, and even if the right to
administer some properties that came to the University vested in the minority before the
establishment of the Aligarh University, whether it had been surrendered when the Aligarh
University came to be established ?
• Are the amendments made in the Act of 1950 & 1965 infringe any fundamental right thus ultra
vires?
RULE
ARTICLE 30 :- Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under
the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language
ARTICLE 14 :- Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
ARTICLE 25 (1) :- Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
ARTICLE 19 (1) :- (c) to form associations or unions
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
ARTICLE 26 :- Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section
thereof shall have the right(
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law
ARTICLE 29 (1) :- Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture
of its own shall have the right to conserve the same
ARTICLE 31(1) ;- provides that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.

Case:- Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali .

COURT ANALYSES
• The court went into a detailed inquiry of the establishment of the university and mapped the journey of the Aligarh movement. It
found out all the initial work regarding setting up, the way it was functioning and the involvement of the Muslim community in
administering the university . The word established was decided as “to bring into existence” by the court and thus the university
was not established till the Act if 1920 was not passed by the Central Legislature. Court looked at the history of the administration
at the university and held that the powers of administration was not solely in the hands of the Muslims and presence of other
communities was also allowed as per the para 8 of the 1920 Act. Lord Rector who was Governor General of India had superior
powers in the establishment of the university as per Section 13 and Section 14 and concluded that the administration of the
university was never vested or intended to be in Muslim Community. AMU was brought into existence by the 1920 Act . Court
mentions St. David’s college, Lampeter vs Ministry of Education to distinguish university from educational institution on the basis
of power to grant a degree. The Muslim community could not have been possible to establish a university whose degrees were
recognized by the government as per the rules which allowed recognition to the degrees issued only by the universities established
by an Act of Parliament thus the Aligarh Muslim University was established by the Central Legislature and Government of India.
If that is so the Muslim community cannot claim to administer the university under Article 30 (1). There was nothing in law to stop
them from establishing a university but they decided it be established through a legislation by government of India to give
recognition to the degrees of the university. All debts, liabilities and obligations, of the M.A.O College, Muslim University
Foundation Committee and the Muslim University Association were transferred to the University, which was made responsible for
discharging and satisfying them. The court rejects the argument that a minority has the right to administer a educational
institutional institution even if it was not established by the minority. Therefore the Aligarh Muslim university cannot be classified
as a minority institution as it was not established by the Muslims and the right to administer it doesn’t vest with the Muslims.
COURT ANALYSES
• The court rejected the argument regarding violation of Article 26 as the right under clause(a)
only rises where the institution is established by a religious denomination and court already
held that the university was not established by the Muslims and thus the right does not arises.
(Para 30)
• The Muslim community didn’t owned the property belonging to the university when the
constitution of India came into force and had already given the rights to the government. Thus
the rights under clause (c) and (d) of the article 26 to own, acquire and to administer such
property does not rises. (Para 31)
• The act of 1965 in no way affects the right freely to profess practice and propagate religion of
the Muslims given in the Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Thus the contention that 1965
Act was ultra vires doesn’t hold. (Para 32)
• The amendments of the 1965 Act don’t interfere with the right of Muslim community to
conserve any distinct language, script or culture as given under Article 29 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 33)
COURT ANALYSES
• There is no discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that some
university has different provisions. Each university is a class in itself and legislature has right to make
legislation as it may deem fit for the workings of the university. Different universities require different
setup for their workings and hence there is no violation of right to equality. (Para 34)
• It was contended that legislation is ultra vires based on the Article 19 as it deprives Muslims of their right
to property and to form associations and unions.. Article 19 doesn’t give right to citizens to manage
particular educational institution nor a right to hold property vested in corporate body like university. It
gives the right to acquire hold and dispose off property of their own which has not been infringed by the
1965 Act. (Para 35)
• The court assumes Muslim minority as a person under article 31 (1). The M.A.O College, Muslim
University Foundation and the Muslim University Association voluntary surrendered their property and
money to the corporate entity Aligarh Muslim by the 1920 Act. Therefore they had property when the
Constitution of India came into force in 1950. The property still vests in the Aligarh University after 1965
Act. Thus it cannot be said that they were deprived of the right to property under article 31(1). (Para 36)

Judgement:- The Amendments are good and not ultra vires and don’t infringe any fundamental right. Hence the petitions are
dismissed.