Recently, the Supreme Court passed a verdict in the case of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), declaring it a minority institution in a narrow 4:3 decision. While this ruling gives AMU the right to preserve its minority status, it also reflects a missed opportunity.
The Court had a chance to correct a historical oversight—one that’s deeply woven into our Constitution. But instead, the decision played it safe.
The 4:3 vote almost feels like a compromise. It’s as if the Court, while recognizing the issues at hand, chose to avoid the risk of challenging Article 30 directly. And that leaves us with a problem.
Let’s start with a bit of history. Article 30 was included in our Constitution with good intentions. After Partition, there were significant concerns about protecting the rights and identity of minorities in a majority Hindu nation.
Article 30 gave religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
The goal was to ensure they could preserve their unique cultures and values.
But today, the question is: does Article 30 really protect our secular nature? Or does it challenge the very idea of equality?
Article 30: A Historical Error?
It’s time we face the reality that Article 30, though introduced with noble intentions, may have been a mistake.
Here’s why.
India’s secularism is supposed to mean equal treatment for all communities. But Article 30 creates two categories of educational institutions—minority and majority. And these categories have very different rules.
Understanding Majority Institutions
A majority institution is any educational institution established by the Hindu majority or by those who do not qualify as religious or linguistic minorities. These institutions must adhere to government regulations on admissions, faculty recruitment, and, most importantly, reservations. This means they need to follow quotas for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, ensuring opportunities for India’s most underprivileged communities.
Understanding Minority Institutions
Minority institutions, on the other hand, enjoy certain privileges. Protected by Article 30, they are not required to follow reservation policies, and they have greater freedom in admissions and administration. This autonomy allows them to prioritize students from their own community, creating a distinct admission and operational model.
Comparing Majority and Minority Institutions
Why Minority Institutions Are Problematic for India
The preferential treatment given to minority institutions raises tough questions. Minority institutions often prioritize students from their own communities, which excludes students from disadvantaged backgrounds in other communities. In a country as diverse as India, this model creates pockets of exclusivity rather than inclusivity.
Meanwhile, reservations meant to uplift backward communities remain restricted to majority institutions. As a result, backward classes in minority communities may miss out on these benefits.
This system challenges the progress of reservation policies aimed at uplifting disadvantaged groups.
The Critique of Article 30 as an “Incomplete Solution”
The argument for Article 30 is that it safeguards minorities. But in reality, it’s an incomplete solution. True protection for minorities should not create a division in our education system. Instead, we should focus on helping underprivileged individuals across all communities, not just on dividing schools and colleges by religious labels.
When we favour minority institutions in this way, we inadvertently promote inequality. We also risk turning educational institutions into identity-driven spaces, weakening the unity in our diversity.
A Complex Legacy with Room for Improvement
India’s secular model was designed to respect all religions equally. Yet, Article 30 skews this balance. Minority protections in education need to be more aligned with our goals of inclusivity and equality. We need a fresh approach to protect diversity while treating every citizen equally.
Higher Education Institutions: Nation Builders, Not Community Builders
One of the biggest challenges with extending Article 30’s minority privileges to higher education institutions is that it conflicts with the core purpose of higher education. Universities and colleges are not meant to serve any single community. They are meant to build a nation—cultivating minds that contribute to society, the economy, and a globalized world. When minority institutions focus on community-centric admissions and culturally exclusive practices, they risk narrowing the scope of education.
The purpose of these institutions should be to prepare graduates for nation-building, not community-building.
In a secular country like India, education is the foundation for social unity and progress.
While religion is a matter of personal choice, education is a societal necessity. When we allow higher education institutions to prioritize religious education or community-specific values, we’re effectively saying that secularism can be set aside in these spaces. This undermines our national commitment to equal opportunity and unity in diversity.
If we continue to insist on labelling ourselves as a secular country, religiously-oriented education in higher institutions should not be an option. Students should enter these institutions with the goal of broadening their horizons, embracing diversity, and preparing to contribute to a shared future. Education should transcend community and identity. The only way to achieve this is by fostering an environment where students of all backgrounds can learn and grow together without walls of separation built around community lines.
A Call for Consistency in Secularism
If India is truly committed to secularism, then we need consistency in how we apply it across our educational institutions. This means that higher education should focus on universally valuable knowledge and skills, not religious doctrines or community-specific ideals. We cannot call ourselves a secular nation while simultaneously supporting institutions that prioritize community-specific education over inclusivity. Either we redefine what secularism means, or we commit to a secular model where education is unconditionally inclusive and open.
Addressing India’s Challenge
Article 30 might have been introduced with the right intentions, but today it feels like a patchwork solution. A true commitment to secularism and equality requires us to rethink how we support diversity in education. It’s time to revisit Article 30 and create a framework that genuinely supports the underprivileged, regardless of their religious or linguistic backgrounds. Only then can we bridge the gap between intention and impact—and move towards a fairer, united India.
For more information or any assistance, please feel free to contact me in the order of my preference:
WhatsApp: +91 8086 01 5111
Email: mail@deepeshdivakaran.com
Phone: +91 8086 01 5111
Comments