Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Minority Status case: Supreme Court reserves judgment after hearing it for 8 days
On February 01, 2024 (Thursday), the Supreme Court (SC) of India reserved its verdict on the issue of granting minority status, under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The matter was heard by a seven-judge bench comprising 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, headed by the CJI. The SC bench concluded hearing the rejoinder submissions, contentions, or arguments from both sides yesterday (February 01) after hearing it for 8 days.
During the eight-day-long hearing in the SC, Senior Advocate (SA) Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, SA Mr. Kapil Sibal, and SA Mr. Salman Khurshid appeared for AMU and the AMU Old Boys’ Association. Advocate Mr. Shadan Farasat appeared on behalf of the intervenors. Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta and Attorney General Mr. R. Venkataramani appeared for the Union of India. SA Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, SA Mr. Yatinder Singh, SA Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, SA Mr. Vinay Navare, Additional Solicitor General Mr. K.M. Nataraj, and ASG Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee appeared on behalf of the respondents and intervenors.
The SC was hearing a batch of petitions where the concerned question was ‘whether the AMU is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution’. Article 30 states that “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” Another question of law addressed in this case was whether a centrally-funded university established and governed by parliamentary statute (AMU Act 1920) be designated a minority institution. The matter was referred to a larger SC bench by its three-judge bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi in 2019. Along with the aforementioned issues, the correctness of the 1967 SC judgment in the S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India case rejecting the minority status of AMU and the 1981 amendment of the AMU Act were also addressed.
During the 8-day-long hearing, the counsels appearing for both parties mentioned various key aspects including the interpretation of Article 30, the legislative history of AMU, the effect of a statute on minority status, consideration of the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, surrender of rights to the British Government, and many more. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court in its order on February 01, 2024, stated that ‘Arguments Concluded. Judgment Reserved’.
