The Supreme Court on Friday, in a 4:3 majority decision, overturned the 1967 judgment in the S. Azeez Basha vs Union of India case, which had ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), being a central university, could not be classified as a minority institution.
“The view taken in the 1967 Azeez Basha case that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled,” ruled the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench.
The apex court further referred the issue of AMU’s minority status to a regular three-judge bench.
The court said that the key factor in determining an institution’s minority status is identifying who established the institution, adding that administration by non-minority members does not strip the institution of its minority character.
The court also held that the government can regulate minority educational institutions as long as it does not infringe upon their minority status.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma dissented.
The ruling stems from a reference following a 2006 verdict by the Allahabad High Court, which held that AMU was not a minority institution.
The 1967 S. Azeez Basha judgment by a five-judge Constitution bench had similarly ruled that since AMU was a central university, it could not be accorded minority status. However, Parliament restored AMU’s minority status with the passage of the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981.
In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision of the 1981 law granting AMU minority status. The Congress-led UPA government at the time filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against this ruling, and AMU also filed a separate petition.
In 2016, the BJP-led NDA government informed the Supreme Court that it would withdraw the appeal filed by the previous UPA government. The top court referred the case to a seven-judge bench in February 2019.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that there was no concept of minority rights in 1920 when the AMU Act was enacted.
The government argued that institutions of national importance like AMU should not be granted minority status, as this would limit access to certain sections of society and exclude reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
(With ANI input)