A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has overruled its 1967 ruling in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which declared that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is not a minority institution. While the final decision on AMU’s minority status was reserved for a separate Bench, the majority opinion provided a framework for determining an institution’s eligibility for minority status under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized a broad interpretation of “established” in Article 30(1). It stated that the court must examine who was the “brain” behind the institution’s founding, ensuring this person was from a minority community, as well as the purpose and steps taken in the institution’s creation, including land acquisition and funding sources.
The ruling also clarified that the court cannot solely rely on statutory language to determine who established an institution, such as the AMU Act’s claim that the university was created by the Act itself. This approach, the majority held, would improperly make Article 30(1)—a fundamental right—dependent on legislative provisions.
Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma wrote dissenting opinions.
The seven-judge Bench was reviewing a plea related to a 2006 verdict by the Allahabad High Court, which held that AMU, established by imperial legislation in 1920, is not a minority institution.
If AMU does not receive minority status, it will be required to implement reservation policies for both teachers and students, similar to other public universities. However, if minority status is granted, the university could reserve up to 50% of seats for Muslim students. Currently, AMU follows an internal reservation policy that reserves 50% of seats for students from its affiliated schools and colleges, rather than implementing state reservation policies.
The Bench, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna (the incoming Chief Justice of India), Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and S.C. Sharma, heard arguments over eight days, from January 10 to February 1 this year.
The Supreme Court previously addressed this issue in the 1967 S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India case, where a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that AMU was not a minority institution. Referring to the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920, the court found that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim community—a requirement for minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
In 1981, an amendment to the AMU Act declared that the university had been “established by the Muslims of India.” In 2005, AMU, claiming minority status, introduced a reservation policy that allocated 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses to Muslim students.
The Allahabad High Court later struck down both the reservation policy and the 1981 amendment, affirming that AMU was not a minority institution. This ruling was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court, and in 2019, the case was referred to a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the S. Azeez Basha verdict.
The central government, which withdrew its support for the appeal in 2016 and now opposes AMU’s minority status, argued that AMU never held this designation. It contends that when AMU was founded in 1920 under imperial legislation, it relinquished any religious identity and has not been administered by the Muslim community since.
The central government further argued that the S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India ruling was case-specific and would not impact the minority status of other institutions.
The petitioners, however, contended that under Article 30(1), minorities have the right to decide who administers their institutions, regardless of who is in charge. They argued that this choice does not affect an institution’s minority status.
The petitioners also argued that the S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India decision was contradictory. While the court ruled that university degrees must be validated by statutory recognition (such as through the AMU Act), it also held that such recognition would revoke AMU’s minority status. They contended that accepting this reasoning would have broader implications, potentially affecting the minority status of other institutions established by law.
