Supreme Court Overturns 1967 Judgment, Refers AMU’s Minority Status to Bench

In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 4:3 majority, overturned the 1967 ruling in the S. Azeez Basha vs Union of India case, which had determined that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), as a central university, could not be classified as a minority institution. The judgment, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, has significant implications for the classification of educational institutions in India.

Overturning the 1967 Ruling

The Chief Justice stated, “The view taken in the 1967 Azeez Basha case that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled.” This decision marked a shift in how the court views the relationship between an institution’s legal character and its minority status, emphasizing the importance of the institution’s origin rather than its operational framework. The court further directed that the issue of AMU’s minority status be referred to a regular threejudge bench for further deliberation. This ruling challenges the 1967 judgment that had denied AMU minority status solely on the grounds that it was a central university, thus governed by statutory provisions.

Key Factors in Determining Minority Status

The apex court’s decision hinged on the identification of the institution’s founders, stating that the status of an institution as a minority one depends on who establishes it, not on its governance structure. The court made it clear that having non-minority members in the administration does not affect the institution’s minority character. Additionally, the ruling noted that while the government can regulate minority institutions, such regulation must not infringe on their minority status.

Majority and Dissenting Opinions

The majority opinion was delivered by CJI DY Chandrachud, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra agreeing. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma dissented, reflecting a divided view on the interpretation of AMU’s minority status.

Background of the Case

This ruling comes after a long legal battle. In 2006, the Allahabad High Court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution, striking down the provision in the AMU (Amendment) Act of 1981 that had restored the university’s minority status. This judgment was challenged by the Congress-led UPA government at the time, and AMU filed a separate petition. The case saw further developments when, in 2016, the BJP-led NDA government informed the Supreme Court that it would withdraw the appeal filed by the previous government. Subsequently, in February 2019, the case was referred to a seven-judge bench.

Government’s Argument

During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that the concept of minority rights did not exist in 1920 when the AMU Act was enacted. The government contended that granting minority status to national institutions like AMU could limit access to education for various sections of society, particularly those eligible for reservations under the Indian Constitution, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has significant implications not only for AMU but also for the status of other educational institutions in India. By recognizing the possibility of a university being a minority institution even if it is a central one, the Supreme Court has opened the door to a broader interpretation of minority rights in the educational sector. The case is now set to be further examined by a three-judge bench, which will determine the precise status of AMU as a minority institution, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The outcome of this case will likely influence the policies related to the governance and regulation of educational institutions in India, especially those that seek minority status under the Constitution.