Aligarh Muslim University Case: Supreme Court overrules 1967 verdict, refers case to regular bench

NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court overturned a 1967 ruling that had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status, citing its designation as a central university. The court directed that the case documents be submitted to the Chief Justice, who will establish a new bench to examine the validity of the 2006 Allahabad High Court decision regarding AMU’s minority status.
The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in 1967, in the case S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, that AMU was not a minority institution, arguing that as a central university, it did not qualify for special rights under Article 30. The latest ruling, delivered by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has reversed this position, with a 4:3 majority.
A Divided Verdict
The bench, which delivered four separate judgements in the case, held that the status of AMU as a minority institution should be determined based on criteria set out by the court. Chief Justice Chandrachud, who wrote the majority opinion, was joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra in holding that AMU’s minority status must be re-evaluated under the specific tests established by the Court. The majority also noted that AMU’s legal and historical identity as a Muslim institution could not be overlooked, despite its status as a central university.
However, the ruling was not unanimous. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma wrote separate dissenting judgements, arguing that AMU’s classification as a central university and its government funding should preclude its claim to minority status.
Historical Context of AMU’s Legal Status
The question of AMU’s minority status has been a long-standing legal battle. The university, founded in 1875 as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, was granted university status in 1920 during British rule. The AMU Act of 1920 initially defined the institution as a Muslim university, but significant amendments to the Act over the years have altered its legal standing.
A key turning point came in 1951, when an amendment to the AMU Act removed the requirement for religious instruction for Muslim students. This change sparked debates over whether the university retained its character as a minority institution.
In 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision granting AMU minority status, and the case has since moved through several judicial forums. In 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench, and the final verdict was delivered this week.
The 1981 Amendment and Ongoing Controversy
One of the key issues highlighted by the Court in its ruling was the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which, according to Chief Justice Chandrachud, failed to restore AMU’s original minority character as it stood before the 1951 changes. This has been a contentious point in the ongoing legal battles.
Justice Chandrachud noted that the 1981 revision did not fully reflect the historical and constitutional framework under which AMU was founded. “One thing which is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position as it stood prior to 1951,” he remarked during the hearing in February 2024.
Political Implications and Future Challenges
The decision has significant political implications, with strong reactions expected from various quarters. The ruling follows years of legal battles, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led NDA government arguing that AMU’s status as a central university, coupled with its government funding, makes it ineligible for minority rights. This argument was bolstered by the 1967 S. Azeez Basha decision, which the current majority ruling has now overturned.
On the other hand, the opposition-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has consistently argued that AMU’s foundational character as a Muslim institution under the 1920 Act should qualify it for minority status, irrespective of its central university status or government funding.
Kapil Sibal, senior lawyer representing the university in the case, argued that under Article 30 of the Constitution, AMU has the right to self-govern as a minority institution, irrespective of its governance structure or the source of its funding.
A Case for Reconsideration
The Supreme Court has now referred the case back to a regular bench, leaving the final resolution of AMU’s minority status still pending. Legal experts suggest that this could mean more hearings and a possible reexamination of the broader implications of the decision for other institutions with similar claims.
With the court divided on the issue, and with the matter now set to be reconsidered, the future of AMU’s minority status remains uncertain, but Friday’s ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the rights of minority educational institutions in India.