Supreme Court reserved judgment on the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University after 8 days of hearings.
The Supreme Court, following a rigorous eight-day deliberation, has adjourned its verdict regarding the minority designation of Aligarh Muslim University. The court’s decision will delineate whether Aligarh Muslim University is entitled to minority status as outlined in Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.
After an extensive eight-day discourse, a seven-member bench within the Supreme Court has deferred its pronouncement on a series of petitions advocating for minority status recognition for AMU.
Over the course of eight days, the highest court in the land heard a myriad of arguments. The constitutional bench, comprised of seven judges, scrutinized the legality of the 1967 ruling (commonly referred to as the Azeez Basha judgment) delivered by a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court, which revoked AMU’s minority status, as well as the Allahabad High Court’s decision nullifying the 1981 parliamentary amendments.
In 1967, the apex court nullified AMU’s minority status, contending that it was not founded nor administered by a Muslim minority.
Article 30(1) of the Constitution confers upon linguistic and religious minorities the fundamental right to establish and manage educational institutions of their preference. These privileges are safeguarded by a prohibition against infringement under Article 13.
In 1981, a divisional bench of the highest court questioned the validity of the Azeez Basha judgment, which annulled AMU’s minority status, and referred the issue to a seven-judge bench. This matter lingered unresolved for approximately 43 years.
In 1981, amendments were introduced to the AMU Act by Parliament to overturn the Azeez Basha judgment, which stated that AMU was not established or managed by Muslims and therefore could not benefit from minority protection to administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
In 2006, the Allahabad High Court invalidated these amendments.
Subsequently, both AMU and the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre contested this decision before the Supreme Court.
In 2016, the Centre, under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, reversed its position and moved to withdraw its appeal, affirming that AMU is not a minority institution and supporting the correctness of the Basha judgment..
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing AMU, presented arguments, prompting the Chief Justice of India to make a significant observation on Friday. The Chief Justice remarked that the 1981 amendment by the Centre did not fully restore the previous status. They made some concessions but did not completely revert, the Chief Justice noted.
On Thursday, the Chief Justice of India, leading a seven-judge bench, cautioned the Centre regarding its eagerness to challenge the 1981 parliamentary amendment, stating that the court would be reluctant to interpret the law in a manner that could significantly undermine the authority of the legislative body.
In its written submission, the Centre informed the apex court that AMU could not be considered a minority institution due to its “national character.”
During the hearing of the petitioners, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud remarked that merely being governed by a Central statute does not negate an institution’s minority status.