Supreme Court Overrules 1967 Verdict on Aligarh Muslim University’s Minority Status: Revisiting Constitutional Rights and Institutional Autonomy

Supreme Court Overrules 1967 Verdict on Aligarh Muslim

 University’s Minority Status: Revisiting Constitutional Rights

and Institutional Autonomy

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overruled the 1967 S Azeez Basha vs Union of India case, which held that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) could not be considered a minority institution due to its status as a Central university. This recent decision marks a significant shift in understanding the minority character of institutions established by a religious community, even if they are later funded and managed by the government. Here is an in-depth look at the verdict and its potential implications for minority institutions across India.

Background of the Case

The status of Aligarh Muslim University as a minority institution has been a contentious issue for decades. Established in 1920 through the AMU Act, the university has a rich history associated with India's Muslim community. However, in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in the S Azeez Basha case that AMU’s minority status could not be upheld because the institution was established through legislation by the Central government, making it a public institution rather than one founded by a minority group.

In 1981, Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act, reinstating AMU's minority status, allowing it to reserve seats and provide educational facilities for Muslims. However, this amendment was challenged, leading to the 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling, which struck down the university's minority status, citing the 1967 precedent.

The Current Verdict

A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud recently ruled in favor of revisiting the minority status of AMU. In a 4:3 majority decision, the Bench referred the minority status issue back to a regular three-judge bench for final determination. The majority opinion, penned by CJI Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JD Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, underscored that minority status should depend on who established the institution and that administration by non-minority members does not negate an institution’s minority character. 

The majority verdict upholds that:

1. Minority Status Considerations: Determining AMU’s status as a minority institution hinges on identifying who established it. If it was founded with a clear intention to serve the Muslim community, then that identity must be preserved.

2. Autonomy in Governance: Governmental regulation of minority educational institutions is permissible as long as it does not infringe upon the minority character of the institution.

Dissenting Opinion

Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma presented a dissenting view, opposing the re-evaluation of AMU’s minority status. They expressed concerns that recognizing AMU as a minority institution could restrict access to students from various sections of society, particularly those from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).

Arguments Presented

The case drew significant arguments from various parties, including the Union government and the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. 

1. Central Government’s Position: Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Union government argued that a national institution of importance should not exclude students based on minority status. This, they argued, could lead to restricted access and exclusion of various communities.

   

2. Historical Context: The Solicitor General contended that the concept of minority rights did not exist in 1920 when the AMU Act was enacted, and therefore, AMU’s foundational status should be reconsidered in a modern context.

Key Implications of the Verdict

The Supreme Court’s decision to re-evaluate AMU’s minority status could have several far-reaching implications:

- Autonomy for Minority Institutions: This ruling reaffirms the autonomy of minority institutions, allowing them to preserve their unique cultural and religious identities while receiving government support.

- Clarification on Minority Rights in Education: This verdict clarifies the Court’s stance that establishing minority institutions aligns with Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

- Impact on Reservation Policies: Should AMU be recognized as a minority institution, it may affect reservation quotas typically extended to SC, ST, and SEBC categories in public institutions, potentially setting a precedent for other minority-administered educational bodies in India.

The Road Ahead

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the 1967 verdict is a significant milestone, but the final determination of AMU’s minority status now rests with a three-judge bench. This decision will likely reignite discussions around secularism, inclusivity, and educational rights for minorities, prompting further legal debates and policymaking efforts in India’s educational landscape.

This ruling marks an essential step in preserving the rights of minorities to manage educational institutions that reflect their unique identities while balancing the need for inclusivity and equal access. As the case progresses, its outcomes will not only shape AMU’s future but will also have a lasting impact on the status of minority institutions across India.