[BREAKING] ‘Minority Status of AMU Won’t Cease Due to Statute’: SC Overrules 1967 Order Denying Minority Status, Refers It To Regular Bench

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The current majority opinion, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, re-evaluated this principle, holding that statutory incorporation alone does not strip an institution of its minority status.

NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision concerning Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a seven-judge Supreme Court bench (4:3 majority) set aside the 1967 S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India ruling. The earlier decision had concluded that AMU, as an institution incorporated by statute, could not be granted minority status.

The current majority opinion, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, re-evaluated this principle, holding that statutory incorporation alone does not strip an institution of its minority status.

Instead, the determination must consider the identity and intent of its founders, focusing on whether it was established by individuals from a minority community as per Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.

Chief Justice Chandrachud delivered the judgment on behalf of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, with Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma dissenting. This bench was assembled to address an appeal stemming from a 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling, which found that AMU did not qualify as a minority institution.

READ ALSO: AMU Minority Status | Day 5-Supreme Court Asks How Can Centre Not Accept 1981 Amendment By Parliament

Four critical issues were presented before the Court:

(1) whether a university created by statute (such as the AMU Act of 1920) could claim minority status;

(2) the validity of the 1967 Azeez Basha ruling that denied AMU such status;

(3) the impact and legitimacy of the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which reinstated minority status after Basha; and

(4) the correctness of the 2006 Allahabad High Court’s reliance on Basha in deciding that AMU, as a non-minority institution, could not reserve 50% of seats in medical PG courses for Muslim students.

The Supreme Court overturned the Azeez Basha ruling, clarifying that an institution does not lose its minority status merely because it was established through statutory means.

It stated, “AMU’s minority status will be determined according to the principles in today’s judgment.”

In assessing an institution’s minority status, the Court emphasized the importance of identifying the founders:

“To determine if an institution is a minority institution, it’s essential to look at its origins, including who initiated its establishment, contributed to the land acquisition, and if the minority community was involved.”

The Court added that the presence of non-minority members in administration does not negate an institution’s minority character.

“An institution needs only to have been founded by a minority, not necessarily administered by them,” it ruled, noting that such institutions may aim to offer secular education and do not require minority administrators to do so.

The Court further held that government regulations do not strip an institution of its minority status, so long as the regulation does not encroach upon its minority character. “Institutions founded by any citizen may be subject to regulation under Article 19(6) without undermining their minority status under Article 30,” the Court clarified.

Notably, the Court ruled that Article 30, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and run educational institutions, also applies to those founded before the Constitution’s enactment.

“If Article 30 were limited to post-Constitution institutions, it would weaken its intent. Thus, institutions founded by minorities before the Constitution came into effect are equally protected under Article 30,” the Court declared.

Ultimately, the majority held that a statutory origin does not preclude minority status if evidence suggests the institution was founded by minority community members with the intent to serve their educational needs. However, the Constitution Bench delegated the specific factual determination of AMU’s minority status to a regular bench.

The Court’s decision thus sets a new precedent for evaluating minority educational institutions, directing future inquiries to focus on the founders’ background and intentions.

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE