On Friday, the Supreme Court has set aside its 1967 ruling in the S Azeez Basha v Union of India case, which stated that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), as a Central university, could not hold minority status.
The bench, by a close 4:3 majority, decided to have a three-judge panel revisit the matter and re-evaluate AMU’s minority classification.
The four-judge majority, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) and joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JD Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, held that the original criterion for minority status should focus on the entity or community that initially established the institution.
The ruling clarified that administrative involvement by non-minority members would not negate the institution’s minority status, as long as it maintains its founding intent and community identity.
It further upheld that while the government can regulate minority institutions, such oversight should not alter their essential minority character.
Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma dissented, signaling continued debate on the nuanced interpretations of minority rights in educational institutions.
Case Background
This decision reopens questions originally settled in 1967, when a five-judge Constitution bench had ruled that AMU, established as a national university, could not hold minority status.
However, in 1981, the Indian Parliament passed an amendment to the AMU Act, recognizing the institution as a minority establishment.
That amendment was later challenged, leading to a 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling which stripped AMU of its minority status.
Subsequent governments have taken different stances on this issue.
In 2016, the BJP-led government stated its intention to withdraw a previous appeal made by the UPA government to reinstate AMU’s minority status.
During the recent hearings before the seven-judge bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, argued against AMU’s minority status, emphasizing that such classification could restrict the university’s accessibility to broader social groups, including reserved categories.
The Court’s decision has now set the stage for a fresh review of AMU’s status as a minority institution, with implications for the university’s governance and policies concerning admission quotas and reservations.
Also Read: State Cannot Claim Private Property Under Article 39(b): Supreme Court
