The Supreme Court of India on Friday ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, overruling the 1967 verdict. However, the court has transferred the case to a regular bench.
The a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 1967, had ruled that AMU was not a minority institution because it’s a central university in the case S.Azeez Basha V Union of India.
A seven-judge Constitution bench, led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, delivered four separate judgements in the AMU minority status case with 4:3 majority.
The CJI said that he has written the majority verdict for himself and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
Meanwhile, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma have penned their separate dissenting verdicts, making four judgements in the case.
The top court’s majority verdict said that issue of AMU’s minority status must be decided on basis of tests laid down by it.
The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act of 1920, initially establishing AMU as a Muslim university, has seen multiple amendments, including the pivotal 1951 revision which eliminated compulsory religious instruction for Muslim students.
“One thing which is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position as it stood prior to 1951,” the CJI had said on February 1.
Historically founded as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, AMU became a university under the British Raj in 1920.
Since then, its legal status as a minority institution has been contested. The Allahabad High Court struck down its minority status provision in 2006, and appeals continue to push the matter through the courts, ultimately being referred to a seven-judge bench in 2019.
Arguments against minority status claim that AMU’s funding and status as a central university negate such claims, a view supported by the NDA government citing the Supreme Court’s 1967 S. Azeez Basha case.
The UPA, however, sought to counter this through appeals against the High Court’s ruling. Lawyer Kapil Sibal argued that Article 30 of the Constitution provides AMU the right to self-govern as a minority institution, irrespective of its governance or funding.
