Supreme Court Revisits Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status: Landmark Overruling of 1967 Judgment
AMU Minority Status Case: The Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling regarding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In a narrow 4-3 majority, the Court overruled the 1967 S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India judgment, which had long served as the foundation for denying AMU minority status. However, the Court deferred the final decision on AMU’s minority status, assigning it to a separate three-judge bench to evaluate based on principles set out in this new judgment.
Separate Opinions from the Seven-Judge Bench
The seven-judge Constitution Bench delivered four individual opinions on the AMU case. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud led the bench, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra concurring in the majority opinion. Dissenting judgments were authored by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma. This bench had reserved its verdict on February 1 after an eight-day hearing.
AMU’s Legislative and Judicial Journey on Minority Status
The Court’s examination of AMU’s minority status brought scrutiny to amendments made to the AMU Act over the years. The original 1920 Act, which established AMU as a teaching and residential Muslim university, was altered in 1951, removing mandatory religious instruction for Muslim students. An amendment in 1981 sought to reinstate AMU’s minority character, but the Court found it insufficient to fully restore the institution’s original status.
Chief Justice Chandrachud, commenting on the issue, noted that the 1981 amendment “only did a half-hearted job” and stopped short of reinstating AMU’s complete minority status as it existed before 1951. He suggested that a comprehensive amendment reverting to the original 1920 statute might be necessary for complete recognition as a minority institution.
Ongoing Political and Legal Contentions
AMU’s minority status has historically been a contentious issue, with the Allahabad High Court quashing the 1981 amendment that had accorded AMU minority status. This decision led to appeals in the Supreme Court, including petitions from AMU and the then-Congress-led UPA government. The current BJP-led NDA government has opposed the 1981 amendment and supports the 1967 judgment’s interpretation that, as a central university, AMU cannot be a minority institution.
Arguments on Both Sides of the Debate
Veteran lawyer Kapil Sibal, among those advocating for AMU’s minority status, argued that the institution’s character should not be undermined by the non-Muslim composition of its governing council. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, argued that a university funded substantially by the government and recognized as an institution of national importance could not claim affiliation with any particular religious group.
Decades-Long Legal Battle
The dispute over AMU’s minority status has been legally contested for several decades, and the issue was referred to a seven-judge bench in 2019. This latest decision adds another chapter to AMU’s legal saga, as the Supreme Court attempts to balance constitutional principles with the university’s historical and cultural identity.
