Supreme Court Overturns 1967 Verdict on AMU's Minority Status; Teachers' Association Hails Historic Ruling

The 1967 judgment had held that AMU could not be classified as a minority institution since it was established by a legislative statute. On Friday, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion on his final working day.

In a landmark ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court, by a 4:3 majority, overruled its 1967 decision in Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) the right to claim minority status. The Aligarh Muslim University Teachers' Association (AMUTA) has welcomed the judgment, calling it a historic affirmation of AMU’s unique character. However, the apex court left the final determination on the university's minority status to a separate three-judge bench.

AMUTA Welcomes the Judgment

The Aligarh Muslim University Teachers' Association (AMUTA) expressed its wholehearted support for the Supreme Court's decision, affirming the right of AMU to seek minority status. Dr. Obaid Ahmad Siddiqui, Hony Secretary of AMUTA, described the judgment as historic, recognizing AMU's foundational purpose of serving the educational aspirations of the Muslim community while being inclusive of all sections of society.

"We extend our deepest gratitude to the esteemed lawyers, alumni, and numerous individuals who championed this cause with steadfast dedication, expert guidance, and unwavering support," AMUTA stated. The association emphasized that the outcome upholds AMU's unique character and legacy, and pledged to continue working collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure the university's ongoing success.

Background and Key Arguments

The 1967 judgment had held that AMU could not be classified as a minority institution since it was established by a legislative statute. On Friday, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion on his final working day, emphasized that an institution does not lose its minority status merely because it is governed or regulated by a statute. The majority judgment stated, "Merely because the AMU was incorporated by imperial legislation does not mean it was not established by a minority."

Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, ruled that the university's establishment history, rather than its mode of governance, should be the key factor in determining its minority status. "The genesis and funding sources must be considered to ascertain whether a minority community was instrumental in its establishment," the judgment noted. The court added that the university's administration by non-minority members would not affect its minority character.

Dissenting Opinions

In a dissenting verdict, Justice Surya Kant argued that the legislative intent and recognition under statutory provisions are essential to determining minority status. He underscored the necessity for statutory recognition by bodies like the University Grants Commission. Justice Dipankar Datta, in his dissent, maintained that AMU was not a minority institution, while Justice SC Sharma also dissented.

Context and Future Proceedings

The ruling is connected to a challenge against the 2006 Allahabad High Court decision, which upheld that AMU was not a minority institution. The Supreme Court's latest order now shifts the responsibility to a three-judge bench, which will rule on AMU's minority status in light of the principles laid out in the majority judgment. A favorable verdict for AMU could pave the way for up to 50% reservation for Muslim students.

AMUTA called this moment significant for AMU, highlighting its faith in the judiciary and the Constitution, which acknowledges India's diverse cultural and educational traditions. The association looks forward to a prompt resolution of the minority character case, as guided by the Supreme Court.