Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Minority Status case: Supreme Court Overrules 1967 Verdict by a 4:3 Majority

Today (November 08, 2024), the Supreme Court (SC) of India delivered its judgment in the case relating to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The 7-judge bench, by a 4:3 majority, overruled its 1967 judgment in the S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India case which rejected the minority status of AMU and held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution. The SC bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Dipankar Datta passed the judgment. Earlier on February 01, 2024, the SC bench reserved its verdict on the issue of granting minority status, under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, to AMU. 

The majority judgment was authored by CJI including his and Justice Khanna, Justice Misra, and Justice Pardiwala's views. The majority stated, “The view taken in Azeez Basha that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute is overruled.” Justice Kant, Justice Datta, and Justice Sharma delivered the dissenting opinion. The primary issue addressed in the case was whether AMU is a minority educational institution or not. While considering various existing judgments, the issues to be answered by the court were:

• “Whether an educational institution must be both established and administered by a linguistic or religious minority to secure the guarantee under Article 30;
• What are the criteria to be satisfied for the ‘establishment’ of a minority institution? Whether Article 30(1) envisages an institution which is established by a minority with participation from members of other communities;
• Whether a minority educational institution which is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act 1860 soon after its establishment loses its status as a minority educational institution by virtue of such registration; and 
• Whether the decision of this Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh and the amendment of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act 2005 in 2010 have a bearing on the question formulated above and if so, in what manner.”

The majority opined, “Religious or linguistic minorities must prove that they established the educational institution for the community to be a minority educational institution for the purposes of Article 30(1).” It added, “The right guaranteed by Article 30(1) is applicable to universities established before the commencement of the Constitution.” The majority bench also said, “The view taken in Azeez Basha…that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled…The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in this judgment. The papers of this batch of cases shall be placed before the regular bench for deciding whether AMU is a minority educational institution and for the adjudication of the appeal from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Malay Shukla…after receiving instructions from the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.” 

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kant said, “The minority institutions established in the pre-Constitution era are also entitled to the protection conferred by Article 30.” He added, “Educational institutions, with reference to Article 30 include universities as well…In order to seek protection under Article 30 of our Constitution, the minority institution must satisfy the conjunctive test, namely that it was established by a minority community and has been/is being administered by such a community.” Justice Sharma concluded that the question of whether AMU satisfies the test of establish and administer to seek the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution would be determined by a Regular Bench. Justice Datta, in his separate dissenting opinion, said that AMU is not a minority institution, “AMU was neither established by any religious community, nor is it administered by a religious community which is regarded as a minority community; hence, AMU does not qualify as a minority institution.” Justice Sharma said, “The judgment in Azeez Basha…does not preclude minorities from establishing universities but rather highlights the importance of legislative intent and statutory provisions in determining an institution's character.”