On Friday, by a 4-3 majority, the Supreme Court reversed its 1967 ruling in the Azeez Basha case that denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status, ruling that AMU’s status would need to be revaluated considering the guidelines and principles outlined in the current ruling.
AMU’s minority status will be reexamined by a new bench based on factors like its administrative structure, historical background, and founders’ intentions. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on his last day of work before leaving office, marked a turning point in how institutions with potential minority character could be interpreted under the Indian Constitution. It offers a comprehensive framework for determining whether an institution qualifies as minority-owned and administered under Article 30(1).
A five-judge panel’s 1967 Azeez Basha ruling ruled that AMU was not founded or run by a Muslim minority group, so it was not eligible for minority status under Article 30. After Parliament changed the AMU Act in 1981 to acknowledge the institution’s Muslim roots, the 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling declared the changes unconstitutional, sparking a new legal dispute over AMU’s minority status before the seven-judge panel.
The CJI’s ruling, which was backed by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, was based on a sophisticated interpretation of Article 30(1), which protects the right of linguistic and religious minorities to create and run the educational institutions of their choosing. According to the majority, any executive action or legislation that discriminates against minorities in the establishment or operation of educational institutions is unconstitutional. This interpretation seeks to protect minority communities from excessive state intervention while simultaneously giving them more autonomy in the management of institutions they have “founded” or established.
The 1967 ruling, which maintained that AMU, a legally established university, could not be categorized as a minority institution, was overturned in this decision.
The ruling has important ramifications for AMU. For the first time, the court explained that Article 30(1) is “both an anti-discrimination provision and a special rights” guarantee, allowing minorities to create and run educational institutions. According to this dual interpretation, AMU’s minority status will depend on whether the university was indeed founded by and for the benefit of the Muslim community and whether its operations are now in line with the interests of the minority group. In accordance with Article 30, the court’s ruling requires a further evaluation to ascertain whether AMU satisfies these requirements. AMU’s formal minority status is still up for debate until a regular bench makes a final ruling, but it is now subject to a thorough review considering the court’s most recent standards.
If it is designated as a minority institution, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, other backward classes (OBC), and economically disadvantaged sections (EWS) do not need to have seats reserved at AMU.
Naima Khatoon, vice chancellor of AMU, stated that the university respects the ruling of the Supreme Court. “Our team of legal experts will discuss Friday’s verdict to determine our next course of action,” she stated.
However, judges Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma also provided strongly dissenting views in the decision. In his analysis of the case’s procedural grounds, Justice Kant claimed that the two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya (1981), which had initially questioned the precedent established in Azeez Basha, had overreached itself by sending the issue straight to a seven-judge bench. Despite agreeing with Justice Kant regarding procedural irregularity, Justice Datta had strong doubts over the validity of AMU’s minority status, arguing that acknowledging AMU as a minority institution at this time would be tantamount to historical revisionism. According to him, the courts shouldn’t accept a different, fact-based version of history, and recognize AMU as a minority institution. The notion that the minority community’s early advocacy or support for an institution might be considered establishment was also criticized by Justice Sharma, particularly if the government had primary control and founding authority.
According to AMU and other petitioners in the case, the university’s founding was done specifically to meet the educational needs of Muslims, which is consistent with its core identity as a minority school. According to senior attorneys Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid, and MR Shamshad, the institution’s minority roots should be acknowledged under Article 30’s protective framework, and they emphasized that administrative changes or shifting political positions should not compromise this character.
Attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, countered that AMU’s designation as an “institution of national importance” enables it to fulfill a secular mission rather than one restricted to a minority identity. As outlined in Entry 63 of the Union List, they argued that schools classified as “of national character” ought to maintain a broad-based inclusivity to serve a diverse student body. AMU’s minority classification, the Center added, may possibly undermine constitutional aims for marginalized populations by negating reservation advantages for SC/STs, OBCs, and EWS, highlighting concerns about national unity.
The CJI rejected the Center’s argument, writing that “an institution’s minority character does not change when it is declared to be of national importance. The institution can maintain its minority status even though it is recognized as national because national and minority characteristics are “not at odds with each other nor are they mutually exclusive.”
According to the majority opinion, AMU’s minority status would be determined by a three-part test that included an analysis of its history, mission, and organizational structure. The establishment was required to provide unambiguous proof that it originated in a minority population. The court must identify the “brain behind the establishment,” including any resolutions, letters, or other correspondence that substantiate the university’s conception. Though it need not be solely for the minority’s benefit, the institution’s mission statement must show that its primary goal is to serve that community’s interests. Evaluating AMU’s minority status would also heavily depend on the actions done to carry out this objective, such as obtaining funding, purchasing land, and making infrastructure preparations.
Justice Chandrachud noted: “It is not necessary that the purpose can only be implemented if persons belonging to the community helm the administrative affairs. The existence of a grant must not be interpreted as leading to the erasure of a claim to minority status, as support could be obtained without being perceived as a surrender of the institution’s character”.
The ruling suggested considering the “totality of factors” rather than depending solely on a rigid formula to ascertain an institution’s minority status under Article 30. Each institution has unique historical, sociological, and practical quirks that are taken into consideration in an all-encompassing approach. According to the majority ruling, “the aforementioned indicators of establishment must be taken into consideration as a whole, along with any pertinent facts which are available to the court.”
AMU’s minority status should be considered in the context of post-independence protections under Article 30, the ruling makes clear by rejecting the idea that it should be determined by whether it was created by a minority in pre-independence India. “The status of the group/community that had established the institution, on the date of commencement of the Constitution should be considered,” it emphasized.
The ruling has supported the AMU community’s long-held belief that the case should be decided using historical evidence identifying the organizations and individuals who had conceived of the institution’s concept and worked to establish it, according to historian and former director of AMU’s Urdu Academy Rahat Abrar, who was instrumental in providing crucial historical documents to legal experts in the case.
According to renowned lawyer and Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia, the central government, which is a party, would make a strong case. When asked to comment on the decision in New Delhi, he told reporters, “The Supreme Court, whose primary duty is to interpret the provisions of the Constitution, will do so.”
The Supreme Court established new ground for minority rights law by requiring a new assessment of AMU’s status, in addition to inviting a reexamination of the historical facts underlying its founding. The result of AMU’s case will probably establish a standard for how diversity is accommodated in Indian education, striking a balance between minority autonomy and anti-discrimination constitutional rights.
Read Also: 16-Yr-Old Zaira Wasim Give India’s Highest-Grossing Female-Led Film, Then Quit Bollywood
