In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a 1967 ruling that prevented Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) from claiming minority status. This historic verdict addresses decades of legal challenges surrounding AMU’s status as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which grants minority communities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
Founded in 1875 as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and later transformed into a university in 1920, AMU has long been a center for higher education with deep roots in the Muslim community. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India that AMU could not be classified as a minority institution, as it was established by an Act of Parliament rather than by the Muslim community itself.
The question of AMU’s minority status has since seen various legislative amendments, judicial reviews, and government interventions, including a 1981 amendment aimed at restoring its minority status and a 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling that struck it down. After referring the case to a larger bench, the Supreme Court, in a 4:3 split decision, has now set the foundation for revisiting and potentially restoring AMU’s minority status. The verdict, delivered by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, reframes how minority status can be granted to institutions established through legislation.
1. Overruling of the Azeez Basha Verdict
The Court’s 4:3 majority overturned the 1967 Azeez Basha judgment, which had previously held that institutions established by statute could not claim minority status. This ruling marks a significant shift in how the Court interprets the criteria for minority institutions under Article 30.
2. Referral to a Regular Bench for Final Decision
While the seven-judge bench overruled the Azeez Basha decision, it did not directly declare AMU a minority institution. Instead, the case has been sent to a regular bench to examine the historical context of AMU’s establishment and its affiliation with the Muslim community.
3. Interpretation of Article 30
The majority opinion stated that minority status should not be dismissed solely because an institution was created by legislative means. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that legislative establishment does not preclude an institution from claiming minority rights if it reflects the values and needs of the founding minority community.
4. Role of the “Founding Mind”
The ruling introduced a new test for minority status, focusing on the “founding mind” behind an institution’s creation. If evidence suggests that the institution was established with the intent of serving the needs of a minority community, Article 30 protections could apply.
5. Incorporation by Legislation vs. Establishment by Community
The judgment clarified that formal incorporation through legislation does not override the minority status that might be inherent due to the institution’s origins. Thus, the AMU Act of 1920 does not negate the founding influence of the Muslim community on the institution’s establishment.
6. Broadened Criteria for Minority Status
The Court ruled that institutions are not required to serve solely the minority community, nor must they be administered solely by it, to qualify for minority status. This broadens the framework for determining minority rights, potentially affecting other institutions in similar circumstances.
7. Legal Trajectory of the Case
This case follows a complex legal history. In 2019, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench, reopening a 2006 Allahabad High Court decision that denied AMU minority status. The verdict now opens new possibilities for the case’s future.
8. Dissenting Opinions
Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma dissented, maintaining that Article 30 protections should not extend to institutions established by statutory bodies rather than by minority communities.
9. Historical References and Case Law
The minority status of AMU has been revisited in multiple landmark cases, including the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, which addressed minority education rights but left the specific question of AMU’s status unresolved.
10. Representation and Argumentation
The Union government, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, presented arguments against AMU’s claim to minority status, asserting that the institution’s statutory foundation undermines such a classification. However, the majority bench found that an institution’s founding intent should play a key role in these determinations.
To conclude, the Supreme Court’s ruling opens a new chapter in the longstanding legal saga over AMU’s minority status. By overturning the Azeez Basha judgment, the Court has made it possible for institutions established by legislative means to claim minority status if their origins align with the cultural or educational aspirations of a minority community. This decision not only impacts AMU but also sets a precedent for other institutions seeking minority rights.
Ultimately, the case’s outcome will depend on further examination by a regular bench, which will assess the historical circumstances surrounding AMU’s establishment. For AMU and its community, the Supreme Court’s decision symbolizes a step forward in the journey to reclaim minority status and reinforces the principles of educational autonomy and minority rights embedded within India’s Constitution.
(With inputs from agencies)
