New Delhi The Supreme Court on Friday, by a 4-3 majority, overturned its 1967 judgment in the Aziz Basha case which had refused to grant minority status. Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), recognizing that there will be a need to re-evaluate the position of AMU on the basis of the principles and direction defined in the present decision.
Marking a turning point in how institutions with potential minority character can be interpreted under the Indian Constitution, the majority opinion written by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjay Y Chandrachud on his last working day before leaving office Rai provided a detailed framework for evaluation. Whether an institution qualifies as a minority-owned and administered institution under Article 30(1) while AMU’s minority status is being considered by a new bench on factors such as its historical context, administrative structure and the intentions of its founders A thorough investigation will be done.
In 1967, the Aziz Basha judgment by a five-judge bench declared that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority community, thereby disqualifying it from minority status under Article 30. Went. Parliament later amended the AMU Act in 1981 to recognize the origins of AMU. Muslim community, but an Allahabad High Court judgment in 2006 invalidated these amendments, triggering a fresh legal debate over the minority character of AMU before a seven-judge bench.
At the core of the CJI’s judgment, supported by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra, was a sophisticated understanding of Article 30(1) that guarantees the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Is. According to the majority, any law or executive action that discriminates against minorities in the establishment or operation of educational institutions is unconstitutional – an interpretation intended to protect minority communities from undue state interference, as well as give them a higher say in the management of their institutions. To provide autonomy. Installed or “established”.
The judgment overruled an earlier 1967 judgment which had held that AMU, a university established through law, could not be classified as a minority institution. The majority opinion concluded that entities created by minority groups can retain their minority character even if they are incorporated by statute, challenging the earlier understanding that statutory recognition entitles an entity to a claim to minority status. Disqualifies you from doing so.
This decision has important implications for AMU. For the first time, the court clarified that Article 30(1), which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, guarantees “both an anti-discrimination provision and a special right”. This dual interpretation means that AMU’s minority status will depend on whether the institution was genuinely established by and for the benefit of the Muslim community, as well as on whether it is administered in a manner consistent with the interests of the minority community. goes. The court’s decision mandates a fresh evaluation to determine whether AMU meets these criteria under Article 30. Till a regular bench reaches a final decision, AMU’s official minority status remains undecided, but is now open to serious reconsideration based on the latest norms of the court.
If declared a minority institution, AMU is not required to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
AMU Vice-Chancellor Naima Khatoon said that the university respects the Supreme Court’s decision. “We will discuss Friday’s decision with a team of legal experts to decide the future course of action,” he said.
However, the judgment also included a dissenting opinion by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Kant criticized the procedural underpinnings of the case, saying that the two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya (1981), which had originally questioned the precedent established in Aziz Basha, had by directly referring the case to seven Violated his jurisdiction. Judge Bench.
Agreeing with Justice Kant on the procedural unfairness, Justice Dutta expressed deep doubts about the validity of AMU’s claim to minority status and argued that recognizing AMU as a minority institution now would be historical revisionism. In his view, the courts should not support an alternative historical narrative supported by the facts and recognizing AMU as a minority institution after almost a century would risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and commitment to factual integrity. There will be risk.
Justice Sharma also criticized the idea that a minority community’s initial support or advocacy for an institution could qualify as establishment, especially if the actual establishment and control lies primarily with the government.
AMU and other petitioners in the case argued that AMU was established with the express intention of catering to the educational needs of Muslims, reflecting its fundamental character as a minority institution. Senior advocates Rajiv Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid and MR Shamshad stressed that this character should not be diluted by administrative changes or evolving political stances, stressing that the minority roots of the institution are protected by Article 30. Recognition should be given under the framework.
However, the central government, through Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that AMU’s status as an “institution of national importance” imbues it with a secular mandate, and not limited to minority identity. He argued that institutions designated as being of “national character” should maintain broad-based inclusivity, as enshrined under Entry 63 of the Union List, thereby serving a diverse student body. Highlighting concerns over national integration, the Center further argued that AMU’s minority designation could potentially run counter to constitutional goals for marginalized communities by denying reservation benefits to SC/ST, OBC and EWS .
Rejecting the Centre’s argument, the CJI wrote that “declaring an institution as an institution of national importance does not mean a change in the minority character of that institution.”
He argued that although the institution is recognized as national, it can still retain its minority status, because national and minority characteristics “are not contradictory to each other nor are they mutually exclusive”. The majority judgment elaborated: “The first indicates that the character of the institution is all-India or national, as opposed to relatively more local or regional institutions. The latter is evidence of the religious or linguistic background of the Founders and the constitutional rights vested in them.
The majority view outlined a three-part test to ascertain the minority status of AMU, which sought to examine its origins, objectives and administrative arrangements. It specified that the establishment had to show clear evidence of its origin within the minority community. The court must determine the “mind behind the establishment”, which includes letters, resolutions or correspondence that prove the idea of the university. Although the object of the institution need not be exclusively for the benefit of minorities, it must still demonstrate that its main objective is to serve the interests of that community. Additionally, the steps taken to implement this approach, including securing funds, land acquisition and infrastructural arrangements, will also be important in assessing AMU’s minority status.
Justice Chandrachud said: “It is not necessary that the objective can be implemented only if persons belonging to the community head the administrative affairs.” This gives institutions like AMU some flexibility in their administration, as the community may choose to hand over administration to individuals from outside the community, especially if they are best suited to further the mission of the institution.
Addressing the complex question of state aid, the majority clarified that support in the form of grants or land does not inherently negate the minority character of an institution. Justice Chandrachud said, “The presence of the grant should not automatically be construed as abrogation of the claim to minority status,” noting that support can be received without being seen as a sacrifice of the unique character of the institution.
To determine the minority status of an institution under Article 30, the judgment advised looking at the “totality of factors” rather than relying on a strict formula. This holistic approach takes into account the distinct historical, social and practical nuances associated with each institution. The majority opinion stated, “The above indicia of establishment must be considered in totality, along with any relevant facts available to the court.” It states that courts must consider competing factors, such as whether the initial consideration for establishing the institution and subsequent efforts reflect a genuine intention to benefit the minority community.
Rejecting the notion that AMU’s status should depend on whether it was founded by a minority in pre-independence India, the judgment makes it clear that AMU’s minority status under Article 30 was recognized after independence. Should be seen in the context of security. It emphasizes that “consideration should be given to the position of the group/community which established the institution on the date of coming into force of the Constitution”.
The university community praised Friday’s decision, saying it reaffirmed the principles on which the university was founded.
Historian and former director of AMU’s Urdu Academy Rahat Abrar, who played a key role in providing important historical documents to legal experts in the case, said the verdict has validated the claims of the AMU community, which had always maintained that the case The decision should be taken on a case by case basis. On historical evidence on the identity of the organizations and individuals who conceived the idea behind this institution and worked for its establishment.
Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson and senior lawyer Gaurav Bhatia said that the central government, which is a party, will present its stand very strongly. “The Supreme Court, whose primary duty is to interpret the provisions of the Constitution, will do that,” he told reporters in New Delhi seeking his reaction to the verdict.
The decision could have cascading effects on other educational institutions across India, especially those established before the enactment of the Constitution. While the majority decision supports a broad view of minority rights, the dissent underlined the risks of interpreting Article 30 too broadly, cautioning against legal fictions that could distort historical facts.
By ordering a fresh assessment of the status of AMU, the Supreme Court has not only invited a re-examination of the historical facts surrounding its establishment, but has also broken new grounds for minority rights jurisprudence. The ultimate outcome of the AMU case will likely set a precedent for how India’s educational landscape accommodates its diversity, balancing minority autonomy with constitutional protections against discrimination.
