SC’s Historic 4-3 Ruling Sends AMU’s Status Back for Re-evaluation

New Delhi, 8th November 2024: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a 1967 judgment that blocked Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) from holding minority status, leaving the final determination to a three-judge bench. With a slim 4-3 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that AMU’s minority status should be re-evaluated under modern principles, potentially restoring rights long-debated in India’s legal system.

The 1967 verdict in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India argued that AMU, as a central university, could not be designated as a minority institution. But in Friday’s decision, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, delivered the majority opinion challenging this perspective. Meanwhile, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma dissented, presenting a divided view on this deeply rooted issue.

Background of the Minority Status Dispute

Established in 1875 as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, AMU transitioned into a university in 1920. This institution has historically been regarded as a bastion for India’s Muslim community. However, its minority status has faced repeated challenges. In 1951, changes to the AMU Act removed compulsory religious instruction, prompting questions over its minority character. The debate intensified following the 1967 Supreme Court ruling, which held that AMU, as a centrally-funded institution, could not be recognized as a minority entity. This judgment later influenced the Allahabad High Court’s 2006 decision, which quashed an amendment to the AMU Act granting it minority status.

The 1981 Amendment: A Half Measure?

To counter the implications of the 1967 decision, the Congress-led government amended the AMU Act in 1981, attempting to restore AMU’s minority status. However, the Supreme Court has indicated that this amendment was insufficient. Chief Justice Chandrachud commented that the amendment did not fully return AMU to its original minority character as established in 1920. Notably, this has been a recurring issue, with both Parliament and the judiciary unable to provide a comprehensive resolution for over five decades.

The Legal Divide

The arguments for and against AMU’s minority status reflect broader ideological differences. Proponents, including senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the institution’s governance structure remains grounded in its Muslim roots, despite only 37 Muslim members on the 180-member governing council. Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the NDA government, asserted that AMU’s status as a national institution, funded by the central government, disqualifies it from minority status under Indian law.

The decision to overturn the 1967 ruling and leave the final verdict to a smaller bench highlights the complexity of balancing constitutional rights with AMU’s historic identity. With this decision, the Supreme Court has refrained from issuing a definitive stance, instead prompting a thorough reconsideration rooted in present-day interpretations of minority rights and educational policy.

Implications for the Future

This ruling could significantly impact the administration of AMU and other minority institutions in India. The debate around funding, religious identity, and constitutional rights is set to continue, with the three-judge bench now tasked with navigating this challenging terrain.

As one of India’s oldest institutions, AMU’s future as a minority university will have far-reaching effects on educational autonomy, minority rights, and the balance between institutional history and national policy.