LexS. AZEEZ BASHA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•' :s. AZEEZ BASHA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA October 20, 1967 (With Connected Writ Petitions) [K. N. WANCHOO, C. J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. R.AMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER, AND K. S. HEGDB, JJ.J Aligarh Muslim University Act ( 40 of 1920) as amended by Act 62 of 1951 and Act 19 of 1965-If violative of Arts, 14, lQ.i 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 of the Constitution-'Establish' meaning of-Right of religious minority to administer or maintain-When arises-Funda- tor perficiens, rights of. A B c In 1877, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh (MA.O. College) was started as a teaching Institution under the D Allahabad University for the educational regeneration of Muslims in India Thereafter, the idea of establishing a Muslim University gathered strength and the Muslim University Association was formed. The Government of India informed the Association that a sum of rupees thirty lakhs should be collected before the Univer- sity could be established. Therefore, a Muslim University Foun- • .dation Committee was started and it collected the necessary funds. The contributions were made by Muslims as well as non-Mµsll.ms. With the M.A.O. College as a nucleus, the Aligarh Muslim Uni- versity was then established by the Alil!arh Muslim University Act, 1920. The preamble and ss. 3 and 4 of the Act show that the M.A.O. College, the Muslim University Association and the M11&- llm University Foundation Committee legally came to lend, and that the three bodies voluntarily surrendered whatever property 1 they had to the Aligarh University, so that, all their properties movable and immovable were vested In the Aligarh University. Section 23 of the Act provided for the constitution of the Court of the University. By the proviso to s. 23(1) no penon other than a Muslim could be a member. of the Court of the UniverSlty, and by s. 23(2)., the Court of the University was to ba the sup!feme govern- ing body of the University. By su\>4. (3) the Court of the Univer- 9 slty was given the power of making statutes. Section 13 provid- ed for the Governor General of India to be ~ Lord Rector of the University and s. 14 provided that the Governor of the United Provinces, the members of his Executive Council, the Ministers, one member nominated by the Governor and one member nominated by the Minister In charge of Education to be the Vlsltln&. Board of the University. These persons were not necessarily Muslims but they had powers -over the administration of the Univenlty o\'farriding those of the Court of the University. Further, ss 28(2) B and 30(3) laid down that no Statute or Ordinance or amendment or repeal of an existing Statute or C>tdinance ·would have any vali- dity unless It had been approved by the Governor General In Council. Section 40 gave further powers to the Governor General In Council to remove any difficulty which might arise In the establish- ment of the University. 833 834 SUPBJUIE COURT REPORTS (1968] 1 S.C.R. A In 1951, the A!igarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1951 was passed and it made certain chanl!es in the 1920 Act on account of the coming into force of the Constitution. Sections 13 and 14 w>ere so anifended 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 proviso to s. 23(1) was deleted, with the result that, non-Muslims could also be the mem- 11ers of the Court of the University. B There were further amendments ty Ordinance II of 1965 which was replaced by the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1965. As a result of those amendments the Court of the Uni- versity no longler remained the supreme governing body. Many of its powers w>ere taken away and those of the Executive Council were correspondingly increased. The Court practically became a body nominated by the Visitor, every P.!rson holding office imme- O diately before the date on which the Ordinance was promulgated ceased to hold office from the said date, and, until the Court was reconstituted, the Visitor might by flaneral or special order direct any officer of the University to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on the Court. The petitioners challanged the constitutional validity of the 1961 and 1965 Acts, on the following grounds :-(1) the Muslim D -minority had established the University and therefore had a right to administer it under Art. 30(1) of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.