In a landmark decision, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India revisited the contentious issue of Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status. By a 4:3 majority, the Court overruled its 1967 decision in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which previously held that an institution established by statute could not claim minority status.
Led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the majority opinion emphasised that the origin and “founding mind” behind an institution should determine its eligibility under Article 30, which protects the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The ultimate question of AMU’s minority status has now been referred to a regular bench for factual examination.
Here are 10 key points from the Supreme Court judgment regarding the minority status of AMU:
1. Overruling of Azeez Basha judgment: The Supreme Court’s 7-judge bench, by a 4:3 majority, overturned the 1967 ruling in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which held that an institution established by statute could not claim minority status.
2. Question of minority status referred to regular bench: While overruling Azeez Basha, the bench did not directly decide whether AMU is a minority institution leaving the determination to a regular bench to investigate AMU’s historical establishment.
3. On Article 30: The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, stated that minority status should not be forfeited simply because an institution was created by legislation emphasising the need to investigate the founding community’s involvement.
4. Role of “founding mind”: The majority highlighted that the crucial test for minority status is to identify who was the “brain” behind the establishment of the institution—if it points to the minority community, then Article 30 rights may apply.
5. Nature of incorporation vs establishment: The judgment clarified that incorporation by legislation does not negate minority status. Merely formalising a university through law doesn’t alter who originally established it.
6. Criteria for minority status: The apex court ruled that the purpose of establishment doesn’t have to be exclusively for the benefit of the minority, nor does administration need to rest solely with the minority community.
7. Trajectory of the case: The current judgment was a result of a referral by a 3-judge bench in 2019, responding to a 2006 Allahabad High Court decision that denied AMU minority status, thereby reopening the case’s historical legal debate.
8. Dissenting opinion: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma dissented from the majority holding differing views on the applicability of Article 30 to institutions established by statute.
9. Case reference history: This issue has a complex procedural history with references made in prior cases including a referral to an 11-judge bench in the landmark TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka case, which opted not to directly address AMU’s minority status.
10. Representation and arguments: The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, along with other senior advocates, presented arguments both for and against AMU’s claim to minority status, highlighting the complex legal and constitutional issues involved in this debate.
Link to article –
