Supreme Court Revisits AMU’s Minority Status in Landmark Judgment
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment on the Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status. In a 4:3 majority judgment, the seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled that an institution’s minority status isn’t lost merely because it was created by statute. This verdict overrules the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, which denied AMU’s minority status based on its statutory establishment.
The court emphasized that to determine an institution’s minority status, it’s essential to examine who founded it and the intentions behind its creation. If this inquiry indicates a minority community as the founder, the institution can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, held that an institution’s minority status cannot be denied solely due to its statutory creation. Instead, the focus should be on who established the institution and its purpose rather than the process of its establishment.
Key Points of the Judgment:
Establishment vs. Incorporation: The court clarified that the terms “incorporation” and “establishment” cannot be used interchangeably. Merely being incorporated by legislation does not imply that the institution wasn’t founded by a minority.
Minority Status Criteria: The court outlined criteria for determining minority status, including identifying the institution’s founder and the community behind its creation.
Administration and Control: The court ruled that minority institutions may prioritize secular education, and it’s not necessary to have minority members in their administration.
The case has now been referred to a regular bench to decide AMU’s minority status based on the majority’s views. This judgment holds significant implications for educational institutions seeking minority status in India.
Professor Faizan Mustafa, a constitutional law expert and Vice Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, and former AMU registrar, who filed the case in his ex-officio position, stated, “It is a comprehensive win for minority rights in general and AMU in particular.”
Najeeb Jung, former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, who has a personal and emotional connection to AMU through his great-grandfather, Moulvi Samee Ullah Khan, one of AMU’s co-founders, commented:
“The judgment is just like showing a lollipop to a child and then taking it away from him. AMU is and has always been a minority institution. While the judgment acknowledges this, it leaves the minority status issue halfway by not providing a final resolution, which does not reflect well on the SC. Given the age of this case, the seven-judge bench should have issued a final judgment after examining the merits in detail. To me, it is a lost opportunity for both the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.”
In response, former AMU Vice-Chancellor Lt. Gen. (Retd) Zameeruddin Shah stated, “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the previous ruling in the Azeez Basha case reflects the aspirations and hopes of a significant portion of India’s populace. This ruling should serve as a lesson, ensuring that AMU not only continues as a beacon but also inspires numerous other sources of hope across the nation.”
Senior Supreme Court Lawyer Sanjay Hegde remarked, “The seven-judge judgment overrules the five-judge ruling, which stated AMU was established by an act of Parliament and therefore could not be a minority institution. AMU can now present evidence of its history and origin, predating its incorporation as a university by the AMU Act. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s ability to interpret constitutional provisions in line with the original intent of the founders of great institutions. A minority institution does not lose its minority character by progressing to university status through legislation.”
Also Read: CJI Chandrachud’s Tenure: Balancing Ideals and Compromises
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, lawyer at the Supreme Court, noted, “The majority judgment in the AMU case today reiterates the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. In doing so, the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that the right under Article 30 is a ‘special protection’ or privilege that should be given broad and practical interpretation. The judgment clarifies that ‘minority character’ is not a rigid concept, nor does it mean such institutions must be exclusively for minorities or focused solely on the tenets of their religion. A holistic approach is necessary in deciding if an institution qualifies as a minority institution.”
Also Read: A Legacy Best Forgotten
“The specific question of AMU’s minority status will now be examined by a regular bench, applying the law laid down in this judgment. There is a high likelihood that AMU’s minority character will be upheld based on the criteria and approach the judgment advocates,” added Ayyubi. 
Mohd Naushad Khan
The writer is a Delhi based journalist, presently working for weekly magazine, Radiance Views weekly as a Sub-Editor and also contributing articles to other national publications.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT