A Supreme Court bench has ruled 4:3 to overturn a 1967 verdict removing Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, initiating a new debate on its recognition as a minority institution. The ruling, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasizes that minority institutions can offer secular education. The final decision will be determined by a forthcoming three-judge bench, as ongoing discussions on minority rights continue.
New Delhi: In a landmark decision, a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled 4:3 on Friday to overturn the historic 1967 verdict that stripped Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) of its minority status. This significant ruling, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on his last day in office, has once again opened the debate on whether AMU should be recognized as a minority institution. However, the bench left it to a three-judge bench, yet to be constituted, to make the final call on AMU’s status.
This verdict saw a split decision, with Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra forming the majority opinion, while Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma dissented. The bench had reserved its judgment in February, and the ruling now requires further examination by a regular three-judge bench.
Chief Justice Chandrachud underscored the need to explore AMU’s founding origins to establish its minority status. Although AMU was incorporated by British legislation in 1920, it was initially established in 1875 as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by the Muslim community. The ruling indicated that incorporation by imperial legislation does not negate the institution’s establishment by a minority group.
The majority held that institutions do not need to be exclusively administered or solely serve a particular minority community to qualify for minority status. The test, they stated, should focus on whether the university’s administrative structure aligns with its minority character. Importantly, the ruling emphasized that minority institutions may also provide secular education and still maintain their minority status.
The majority also clarified that while the government can regulate minority institutions, these regulations should not interfere with their essential character as minority institutions.
The dissenting judges expressed contrasting views on AMU’s minority status. Justice Dipankar Datta ruled that AMU does not qualify as a minority institution, citing the central government’s significant funding contributions. Justice SC Sharma argued that although a minority institution should ideally be under the control of that community, it should also allow students the option of a secular education.
Under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions. For decades, AMU has been at the center of this debate, with its status shifting between minority and non-minority based on judicial rulings. A 1951 amendment removed mandatory religious instruction for Muslim students, and a later 1981 amendment attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to restore the university’s minority character.
In 1967, the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench, in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case, ruled that AMU could not claim minority status as a central university. This decision was later challenged when the Allahabad High Court in 2006 declared the 1981 amendment invalid. Subsequently, the Congress-led UPA government appealed the decision, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
The case became more complex when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that significant government funding—over Rs 5,000 crore between 2019 and 2023—indicated AMU had forfeited its minority character.
What’s Next?
With this recent ruling, the final decision on AMU’s minority status now lies with a three-judge bench. This will be a decisive phase for the institution, as the judgment may reshape the understanding of minority rights in India’s educational sector. As the legal battle continues, AMU’s community, alumni, and stakeholders remain watchful of the impending ruling that will ultimately determine its future and identity.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE