New Delhi, India — In a landmark decision on Friday, a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled 4-3 to overturn a key 1967 judgment that had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) its status as a minority institution. However, the court stopped short of granting the university minority status, leaving that crucial decision to a smaller bench to be constituted later.
The ruling was delivered by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on his final working day, marking a significant moment in Indian jurisprudence. The majority opinion emphasized that AMU, founded in 1875 and later incorporated under British law in 1920, could still claim minority status based on its historical origins and the community that founded it, despite being a central university now.
The issue at hand revolves around Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. For decades, AMU, which was originally set up by Muslim philanthropists as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, had enjoyed this minority status, only for it to be revoked by a 1967 Supreme Court ruling. That judgment held that since AMU was incorporated by an Act of Parliament, it could not be considered a minority institution.
The court’s decision on Friday challenges the earlier precedent, stating that the institution’s origins — specifically its foundation by members of the Muslim community — should take precedence over its later legal status as a central university. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that an institution’s administrative structure, rather than its legal framework, should determine whether it retains minority status.
Notably, the majority also concluded that a minority educational institution may offer secular education without compromising its character. The government can regulate these institutions, the court said, but it must not infringe upon their minority identity.
While the majority judgment was a victory for AMU and its supporters, the ruling was not without its dissenters. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma opposed the decision, stating that AMU should not be classified as a minority institution. Justice Datta argued that AMU, as a central university, does not fulfill the conditions necessary for minority status, while Justice Sharma suggested that while minority institutions must serve their communities, they should also provide students with an option for secular education.
The legal battle has spanned several decades. The issue began when the 1967 S. Azeez Basha case ruled that AMU’s status as a central university made it ineligible for minority recognition. This was followed by a series of amendments and rulings, including the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which tried to revert AMU to its earlier status as a minority institution. However, the amendment was partially unsuccessful, and in 2006, the Allahabad High Court ruled that AMU could not claim minority status. This judgment was appealed by the university, leading to the present Supreme Court case.
AMU’s eligibility for minority status has been further complicated by its funding situation. The Indian government has provided substantial financial support to the university, including over ₹5,000 crore between 2019 and 2023, leading some to argue that this funding undermines its minority character.
Reactions from Muslim Leaders
The ruling has sparked significant reactions, especially among Muslim leaders and scholars in India. Many have expressed relief and hope that the final decision will restore AMU’s long-standing status as a minority institution. Zafarul Islam Khan, former chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, called the verdict a “victory for India’s Muslim community.” He emphasized that the court’s ruling recognizes the historical role of Muslims in the foundation of AMU and affirms their right to preserve their educational institutions.
On the other hand, critics within the Hindu nationalist camp have questioned the decision, arguing that AMU, having received substantial state funds, should not retain its minority status. They contend that public institutions should be inclusive and not operate with a community-specific agenda. This argument was prominently raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearings, where he contended that AMU’s government funding had effectively compromised its minority character.
In response, Syed Shahabuddin, a prominent Muslim leader and former MP, condemned the critics, asserting that AMU’s religious roots are deeply tied to the Muslim community, and its autonomy is crucial for the preservation of Muslim identity in higher education. He added that denying AMU minority status would set a dangerous precedent for other religious institutions across the country.
What’s Next?
Although the seven-judge bench has ruled in favor of reconsidering AMU’s minority status, the final determination will now rest with a three-judge bench. This bench will consider whether AMU should be formally granted minority status, taking into account both the university’s origins and its present-day status as a central university. The outcome of this decision could have far-reaching implications for the status of other minority institutions in India.
For now, the future of Aligarh Muslim University remains uncertain, but the recent ruling has rekindled the debate over the place of religious minorities in India’s educational landscape. The case continues to be a focal point for discussions on secularism, minority rights, and the intersection of religion and state in India.
