The Supreme Court of India has overturned a long-standing 1967 ruling related to the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In a split decision of 4:3, the Court ruled that the earlier verdict in S Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, which stated that AMU could not be a minority institution due to its status as a central university, should be reconsidered.
The recent judgement has sent the case back to a three-judge bench to re-examine AMU’s minority status, a question that has long been debated in legal and political circles.
At the heart of the decision lies the question of who originally established AMU and whether that foundation can be tied to a specific community, thus potentially granting it minority status.
The majority opinion held that while the university’s administration may include non-minority members, this does not inherently compromise its minority character. The Supreme Court emphasised that the government could impose certain regulations on minority institutions without infringing upon their distinct identity.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud authored the majority opinion, which was supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.D. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. In contrast, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma dissented.
The Supreme Court’s decision builds upon a complex history of AMU’s status. The institution initially regained its minority status through the AMU (Amendment) Act, passed by Parliament in 1981.
However, in 2006, the Allahabad High Court overturned this status, declaring that AMU could not be classified as a minority institution. Both AMU and the central government, under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.
In 2016, the situation took another turn when the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), announced its intention to withdraw the appeal initially filed by the UPA government. This action underscored the politically sensitive nature of AMU’s minority status.
In 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a seven-judge bench for a deeper examination. During recent hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Union government, contending that AMU, as an institution of national importance founded in 1920, should not have minority status.
He reasoned that granting this status could limit access to the university for broader sections of society, including students from scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.
Follow us
