Supreme Court reopens path for AMU’s minority status, overturns 1967 judgment

In a landmark ruling on the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a 7-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court has reopened the path for AMU to claim minority status. The court’s decision, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud in a 4-3 majority, overturned the 1967 Supreme Court judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, which stated that a university created by an act of Parliament could not be considered a minority institution.

Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that the earlier view, which disqualified AMU’s minority status due to its establishment by statute, was too rigid and missed the broader purpose of Article 30, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and manage their own institutions. “Merely being incorporated by statute does not negate the right of minorities to establish institutions,” he said.

This decision reinterprets the concept of “establishment,” holding that the background and founding intent of an institution are critical in deciding if it is a minority institution. The Court noted that the community’s role and contribution in setting up AMU—such as providing land and funds—are vital points in this assessment. “To determine who established the institution, we must trace the origins and who was the brain behind it,” said Chief Justice Chandrachud.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing AMU, welcomed the judgment, saying, “It is a historic move that acknowledges the vision and contribution of the Muslim community in establishing AMU.” Sibal added that it’s essential for the court to recognize these contributions to ensure constitutional rights for minority communities are upheld.

The minority status of AMU has been a contentious issue for decades, with a major turning point in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Azeez Basha that AMU could not claim minority status because it was established by the British Parliament through the AMU Act of 1920. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud’s majority opinion overturned this, declaring that the historical foundation and community contribution should carry more weight than mere statutory incorporation.

In 1981, Parliament amended the AMU Act, recognizing AMU as a minority institution. This amendment, however, was challenged and in 2006, the Allahabad High Court ruled against it, citing the Azeez Basha judgment. This recent Supreme Court judgment has now paved the way for a fresh hearing on AMU’s minority status by a regular bench, which will evaluate AMU’s status based on the revised criteria.

The three dissenting judges, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma, voiced a different view. Justice Datta categorically stated that AMU should not be considered a minority institution, citing the need to respect the original Azeez Basha judgment. “The establishment by statute holds substantial weight in determining the nature of the institution,” he argued.

This division in opinion underscores the complexity of the case. Justice Surya Kant raised concerns about how the 1981 amendment should influence this decision, emphasizing that institutions must be both “established and administered” by minorities to qualify under Article 30. However, the majority argued that AMU’s administrative structure could remain secular without losing its minority status.

The ruling has significant implications, both for AMU and for minority-run institutions in India. By focusing on the broader intent of Article 30, the Supreme Court has opened doors for other institutions to claim minority status, even if established by a statute, provided there is evidence of minority community involvement in their creation.

“The focus on intent and community involvement is a crucial step forward in interpreting minority rights,” said Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who also represented AMU. He added, “This will help clarify the status of other educational institutions facing similar challenges.”

Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, had argued against granting AMU minority status. They maintained that AMU’s statutory creation under British rule was decisive. However, the Court’s new stance shifts the emphasis from statutory origin to the founding vision, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

With this new interpretation, AMU’s minority status is back in discussion, and a final verdict from a smaller bench is awaiting. The Chief Justice’s concluding remarks underscored the significance of the ruling: “Dharma must guide us toward inclusion and fairness, ensuring that minority rights are not constrained by rigid formalities but by the spirit of our Constitution.”