SC overrides 1967 verdict that removed Aligarh Muslim University's minority tag
The Supreme Court overturned its 1967 ruling, allowing AMU to reassess its minority status based on new criteria, impacting educational rights.
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Friday, by a 4-3 majority, overturned its 1967 decision in the Azeez Basha case that denied minority status for the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), holding that AMU’s status would need to be reassessed based on principles and direction defined in the present judgment.
Marking a turning point in how institutions with potential minority character could be interpreted under the Indian Constitution, the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on his last working day before demitting office, provided a detailed framework for assessing whether an institution qualifies as minority-owned and administered under Article 30(1), while adding that AMU’s minority status will be examined afresh by a new bench on factors such as its historical context, administrative structure and the intentions of its founders.
In 1967, the Azeez Basha judgment by a five-judge bench had declared that AMU was neither established nor administered by a Muslim minority community, disqualifying it from minority status under Article 30. Parliament subsequently amended the AMU Act in 1981 to recognise AMU’s origins within the Muslim community, but a 2006 Allahabad high court decision invalidated these amendments, leading to renewed legal debate on AMU’s minority character before the seven-judge bench.
At the core of the CJI’s judgment, supported by justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was a refined understanding of Article 30(1) that guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. According to the majority, any legislation or executive action that discriminates against minorities in establishing or running educational institutions is unconstitutional – an interpretation that aims to protect minority communities from undue state interference, while also granting them a higher degree of autonomy in managing institutions they have established or “founded”.
This decision overruled the longstanding 1967 judgment, which held that AMU, a university established through legislation, could not be classified as a minority institution. The majority opinion concluded that institutions created by minority groups can retain their minority character even if they are incorporated by a statute, challenging the earlier understanding that statutory recognition disqualified an institution from claiming minority status.
The judgment holds significant implications for AMU. For the first time, the court clarified that Article 30(1), which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, is “both an anti-discrimination provision and a special rights” guarantee. This dual interpretation means that AMU’s minority status will hinge on whether the institution was genuinely established by and for the benefit of the Muslim community, as well as on whether it continues to be administered in alignment with minority community interests. The court’s judgment mandates a fresh assessment to determine whether AMU meets these criteria under Article 30. Until a regular bench reaches a final decision, AMU’s official minority status remains undecided but now becomes open to serious reconsideration based on the court’s latest criteria.
If declared a minority institution, AMU need not reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, other backward classes (OBC) and economically weaker sections (EWS).
AMU vice chancellor Naima Khatoon said the university honours the Supreme Court judgment. “We will discuss Friday’s verdict with out team of legal experts to decide future course of action,” she said.
However, the decision also featured strongly worded dissenting opinions from justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Kant critiqued the procedural grounds of the case, stating that the two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya (1981), which had originally questioned the precedent set in Azeez Basha, overstepped its jurisdiction by referring the matter directly to a seven-judge bench.
While concurring with justice Kant on procedural impropriety, justice Datta expressed deep scepticism about the legitimacy of AMU’s claim to minority status, contending that recognising AMU as a minority institution now would amount to historical revisionism. In his view, the courts should not endorse an alternate historical narrative unsupported by the facts and that recognising AMU as a minority institution after nearly a century would risk undermining the public’s trust in the judiciary’s impartiality and commitment to factual integrity.
Justice Sharma, too, criticised the idea that the minority community’s initial support or advocacy for an institution could qualify as establishment, especially if the actual founding and control resided primarily with the government.
AMU and other petitioners in the case argued that AMU was established with a clear intent to serve the educational needs of Muslims, which reflects its fundamental character as a minority institution. Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid and MR Shamshad underscored that this character should not be undermined by administrative changes or evolving political stances, asserting that the institution’s minority roots should be recognized under Article 30’s protective framework.
However, the central government, through attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, argued that AMU’s status as an “institution of national importance” aligns it with a secular mandate, not one confined to a minority identity. They contended that institutions designated as “of national character” should uphold a broad-based inclusivity, as enshrined under Entry 63 of the Union List, thereby serving a diverse student body. Highlighting concerns over national unity, the Centre further argued that AMU’s minority designation could potentially counteract constitutional goals for marginalised communities by negating reservation benefits for SC/ STs, OBCs and EWS.
Rejecting the Centre’s contention, the CJI wrote that “the declaration of an institution as one of national importance does not amount to a change in the minority character of the institution”.
He reasoned that although the institution is recognised as national, it can still retain its minority status, as the national and minority attributes are “not at odds with each other nor are they mutually exclusive”. The majority judgment elaborated: “The former indicates that the institution has a pan-India or national character, as opposed to relatively more local or regional institutions. The latter is evidence of the religious or linguistic background of the founders and the constitutional rights which vest in them.”
The majority view outlined a three-part test to ascertain the minority status of AMU, calling for an examination of its origins, purpose and administrative setup. It specified that the establishment must show clear evidence of its genesis within a minority community. The court must determine the “brain behind the establishment”, including letters, resolutions or correspondence that prove the ideation of the university. The institution’s purpose, though not required to be exclusively for the benefit of the minority, must still demonstrate that it primarily aims to serve the interests of that community. Furthermore, the steps taken to implement this vision, including securing funds, land acquisition, and infrastructural arrangements, ,would also be crucial in assessing AMU’s minority status.
Justice Chandrachud noted: “It is not necessary that the purpose can only be implemented if persons belonging to the community helm the administrative affairs.” This allows institutions such as AMU some flexibility in their governance, as the community may choose to entrust administration to individuals outside the community, particularly if they are best suited to advance the institution’s mission.
Addressing the complex question of State aid, the majority clarified that support in the form of grants or land does not inherently negate an institution’s minority character. “The presence of a grant must not be automatically interpreted as leading to the erasure of a claim to minority status,” said justice Chandrachud, noting that support could be received without it being seen as a relinquishment of the institution’s unique character.
To determine an institution’s minority status under Article 30, the judgment advised looking at the “totality of factors” rather than relying on a strict formula. This holistic approach takes into account the varying historical, social, and practical nuances associated with each institution. “The above indicia of establishment must be considered as a whole, along with any relevant facts which are available to the court,” stated the majority opinion. Courts, it added, must weigh competing factors, such as whether the initial ideation and subsequent efforts to establish the institution reflect a genuine intention to benefit the minority community.
In rejecting the notion that AMU’s status should hinge on whether it was founded by a minority in pre-Independent India, the judgment makes it clear that AMU’s minority status should be viewed in the context of post-Independence protections under Article 30. It emphasised that “the status of the group/community, that had established the institution, on the date of commencement of the Constitution should be considered”.
The university fraternity hailed Friday’s judgment, saying it has reaffirmed the principles on which the varsity was established.
Rahat Abrar, historian and former director of AMU’s Urdu Academy who played an important role in providing vital historical documents to legal experts in the case, said the judgement has validated the claims of the AMU community which had always maintained that the case should be decided based on historical evidence on the identity of those organizations and individuals who had envisaged the idea behind this institution and worked for its establishment.
Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson and senior lawyer Gaurav Bhatia said the the central government, which is a party, will put forward its case very strongly. “The Supreme Court, whose primary duty is to interpret the provisions of the Constitution, will do so,” he told reporters who sought his reaction to the verdict in New Delhi.
The ruling may have sweeping implications for other educational institutions across India, particularly those established before the Constitution’s commencement. While the majority judgment favours an expansive view of minority rights, the dissent underscored the risks of interpreting Article 30 too broadly, cautioning against legal fictions that may distort historical facts.
By mandating a fresh evaluation of AMU’s status, the Supreme Court not only invited a re-examination of historical facts surrounding its establishment but has also broken new grounds for minority rights jurisprudence. The eventual outcome of AMU’s case will likely set a precedent for how India’s educational landscape accommodates its diversity, balancing minority autonomy with constitutional protections against discrimination.