New Delhi — In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has reopened the long-standing debate over the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In a majority verdict delivered on Wednesday, the Court overruled its 1967 judgment which had denied AMU minority status, and referred the matter to a new three-judge bench for further deliberation. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the university, its administration, and its students.
The case pertains to whether AMU, which was founded in the late 19th century and later incorporated through the *AMU Act* passed by the Indian Parliament, qualifies for minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. Article 30 grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Reversal of 1967 Judgment
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit the issue comes more than five decades after its 1967 verdict in *Aziz Basha vs. Union of India*, which ruled that AMU could not claim minority status because it was constituted under a central statute. At the time, the Court held that the university, though serving a large Muslim population, was not established and administered by the Muslim community, and therefore did not meet the criteria for minority status.
However, in today’s judgment, the Court’s seven-judge bench acknowledged that the 1967 interpretation was flawed. It stated that simply because an institution was set up under a parliamentary statute, that did not automatically negate its claim to minority status. The majority judgment also laid out the criteria that an institution must fulfil in order to be granted minority status, including the requirement for the community to not only establish the institution but also administer it.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who read out the majority judgment, emphasized that the mere establishment of an institution by a minority community is not enough; the community must also have a role in administering the institution. However, the judgment also clarified that revoking minority status solely because an institution is governed by a parliamentary statute would be improper.
A New Three-Judge Bench to Decide the Future of AMU’s Minority Status
The apex court has now referred the matter to a new three-judge bench, which will be tasked with answering crucial questions regarding AMU’s eligibility for minority status. This bench will examine the specific legal and historical details, including whether AMU was originally established by the Muslim community or whether it was a continuation of the earlier *Mau College* (the predecessor institution of AMU).
The bench will also have to determine whether the establishment of the university under the AMU Act is sufficient to grant or revoke minority status. The new bench, to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India, will also be required to clarify the criteria under which an educational institution can be classified as a minority institution, and under what conditions minority status can be retained or revoked.
Background and Legal Implications
The issue of AMU’s minority status has been a contentious one for years, with various legal battles and judicial pronouncements shaping its evolution. The original *Mau College* was founded by the Muslim community in the late 1800s, but AMU was formally established through the *AMU Act* in 1920, which led to questions about whether the Act itself stripped the university of its minority character.
The question of whether an institution’s minority status can be altered based on legislative changes has been a focal point of the debate. Today’s judgment, in effect, calls into question the interpretation of such legislative provisions and sets a new precedent for how such cases should be approached in the future.
Dissenting Opinions
Despite the majority ruling, three judges dissented from the judgment, offering differing views on the constitutional and legal aspects surrounding AMU’s minority status. While the majority opinion found the 1967 judgment’s reasoning flawed, the dissenting judges raised concerns about the process by which the case was referred to a larger bench and questioned the role of a larger bench in interpreting such complex matters.
While the specifics of the dissenting opinions will be made clear once the judgments are read out in full, they highlight the complexity of the case and the diverse legal interpretations involved.
A Relief for AMU
For AMU, today’s verdict is seen as a positive development. The university, its administration, and its student body had long been advocating for the recognition of AMU as a minority institution. The decision to refer the matter to a new bench provides hope for the future, as the new bench will now determine whether AMU will officially be recognized as a minority educational institution.
As the case moves forward, it will continue to be a key legal battle, influencing not only the status of AMU but also the broader debate around minority rights and educational institutions in India.
The Chief Justice’s bench also referred to previous cases involving minority educational institutions, underscoring the need for clarity in defining the criteria for granting and retaining minority status. The outcome of the new three-judge bench’s decision will be closely watched by other institutions that seek minority status under the Indian Constitution.
