In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, by a 4:3 majority, has overturned its 1967 decision that had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) the claim to minority status. However, the top court has said that the issue of whether AMU is a minority institution will now be decided by a separate three-judge bench.
Supreme Court overrules judgement on AMU’s minority status
The 1967 Supreme Court judgment in Azeez Basha vs Union Of India had held that AMU could not claim minority status, as it was established by a statute. On Friday, the court’s majority verdict ruled that an institution would not lose its minority status merely because the government brought a law to regulate or govern it.
“Merely because the AMU was incorporated by imperial legislation would not mean that it was not established by a minority. It cannot be argued that the university was established by Parliament merely because the statute says it was passed to establish the university,” the majority judgment said.
The majority opinion, pronounced by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on his last working day, was concurred by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma dissented.
Determining the Minority Status of AMU?
To determine whether an institution is a minority institution, the court said it needs to consider the genesis of the institute and who was behind its establishment.
“The court has to consider the genesis of the institute and the court must see who was the brain behind the establishment of the institution. It has to be seen who got funds for the land and if the minority community helped,” the court explained.
However, the majority verdict clarified that the administration of the institution by non-minority members would not take away its minority character.
“To be a minority institution, it only had to be established by the minority and not necessarily be administered by the minority members. Minority institutions may wish to emphasise secular education and for that, minority members are not needed in administration,” the court ruled.
Dissenting Opinions of the Supreme Court
In the dissenting verdict, Justice Surya Kant said a minority can establish an institute under Article 30, but it needed to be recognized by a statute and also recognized by the University Grants Commission, a statutory body under the Education Ministry.
“The legislative intent behind a statute incorporating a university or institution would be necessary to decide its minority status,” Justice Kant said. Justice Dipankar Datta, in his verdict, held that AMU was not a minority institution.
Implications for AMU
The Supreme Court’s overruling of the 1967 judgment has set the stage for a separate three-judge bench to determine the minority status of AMU. A favourable[ verdict would allow the university to provide up to 50% reservation for Muslim students.
The reversal of the decades-old judgment is a significant development, as it could have far-reaching implications for the future of AMU and the rights of minority educational institutions in India. The decision underscores the evolving interpretation of the law and the judiciary’s role in upholding the constitutional principles of minority rights.
