The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment regarding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In a 4:3 majority decision, the 7-judge Constitution Bench overturned the 1967 S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India ruling, which had previously denied AMU’s minority status on the grounds that it was established by a statute. The new judgment emphasised that an institution’s minority character is not automatically nullified simply because it was created through a legislative act.
The apex court clarified that the terms “incorporation” and “establishment” should not be used interchangeably. Just because an institution was incorporated by legislation does not mean it was not established by a minority community.
The court laid down a test to determine minority status, focusing on the founders and the community behind the creation of the institution. If it can be shown that the institution was established by a minority group, it can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. It noted that minority institutions can focus on secular education and are not required to have minority members exclusively in their administration.
The case has now been referred to a regular bench for a final decision on AMU’s minority status based on the principles outlined by the majority.
Professor Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University and former AMU Registrar, described the ruling as 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, expressed mixed feelings. He remarked, “The judgment feels like giving a child a lollipop only to take it away. AMU’s minority status has been acknowledged, yet the final resolution remains pending. It’s a lost opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide a conclusive verdict.”
Lt. Gen. (Retd) Zameeruddin Shah, former Vice-Chancellor of AMU, welcomed the judgment, stating, “The decision reflects the aspirations of a significant section of India’s population. It is a lesson for us to uphold AMU’s legacy as a beacon of hope.”
Senior Lawyer Sanjay Hegde noted, “This judgment overrules the previous decision that AMU could not be a minority institution because it was established by an act of Parliament. Now, AMU can present evidence of its historical foundation by the Muslim community before its incorporation by the AMU Act.”
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, a lawyer at the Supreme Court, praised the judgment for reinforcing minority rights under Article 30. He stated, “The bench has reaffirmed that minority character is not rigid. The holistic approach advocated will likely support AMU’s claim to its minority status.”
While the SC has laid down criteria to determine minority status, it stopped short of delivering a final verdict on AMU’s status, leaving the issue for a regular bench to decide. Many legal experts believe that AMU’s minority character will be upheld, given the approach outlined by the current ruling.
Kapil Sibal, a senior advocate who argued the AMU case, commented during a farewell event for the outgoing Chief Justice of India. He highlighted the court’s openness to public scrutiny and its legacy in promoting transparency in judicial proceedings.
