SC overrules 1967 Azeez Basha decision, leaves AMU minority status to be decided by regular bench
New Delhi: In a landmark 4:3 decision, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court today overruled the 1967 S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India verdict, which had previously held that an institution created by statute could not claim minority status. The case involves Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and its long-debated status as a minority institution. The court determined that a statutory basis does not automatically disqualify an institution from minority status and has directed a regular bench to decide the issue based on who was instrumental in establishing AMU.
The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who delivered the judgment on his last working day, was supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Dissenting opinions were voiced by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma. The majority concluded that determining an institution’s minority status should focus on who ideated, funded, and founded it, rather than solely its statutory establishment. The 1967 Azeez Basha decision, which barred AMU from claiming minority status due to its incorporation by statute, was thus overturned.
The Constitution Bench was tasked with examining whether AMU, established by the AMU Act of 1920, qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions. The majority stressed that formal statutory language should not override historical and substantive evidence indicating a minority foundation. The bench also questioned the Azeez Basha decision's interpretation of "incorporation" versus "establishment."
The case's origins trace back to a 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling that deemed AMU a non-minority institution, impacting its ability to reserve seats for Muslim candidates. This decision relied on the Azeez Basha precedent, which the Supreme Court has now set aside, opening the way for fresh examination.
Representatives for AMU, including Senior Advocates Dr Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, and Salman Khurshid, contended that historical records support AMU's minority roots. Meanwhile, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, argued against granting AMU minority status.
The Supreme Court has instructed that further factual findings regarding AMU’s foundation be handled by a regular bench, applying the majority’s new framework for assessing minority status.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC notice to Centre on plea to include ayurveda, yoga in Ayushman Bharat
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on a plea seeking inclusion of ayurveda, yoga, and naturopathy in the national Ayushman Bharat scheme.
A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued the notice to the Centre and others on the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
The plea, which sought inclusion of the practices in PM-JAY, also known as Ayushman Bharat, said the inclusion would allow a significant portion of the country's population to avail affordable healthcare benefits and wellness in various serious diseases, apart from providing employment to many working in the field of Ayurveda.
Ayushman Bharat, which was launched in 2018, has two main components -- PM-JAY and Health and Wellness Centres.
The former provides for a cashless health insurance cover of Rs 5 lakh per BPL family every year.
The petitioner sought the scheme to be implemented in all states and the Indian healthcare systems.
"PM-JAY, that is, Ayushman Bharat predominantly covers and is limited to allopathic hospitals and dispensaries, while India boasts various indigenous medical systems, including ayurveda, yoga, naturopathy, siddha, unani, homeopathy, which are rooted in India's rich traditions and are highly effective in addressing the healthcare needs of the present time," it said.
The plea claimed due to various "policies created by foreign rulers" and "individuals with a colonial mindset" India's cultural and intellectual knowledge, besides scientific heritage, had systematically eroded.
"These foreigners, motivated by a profit-oriented approach, have thoughtfully implemented many laws and schemes during the time of our country's independence that have slowly undermined our rich heritage and history," it alleged.
