SC overrules 1967 judgment, defers AMU's minority status to fresh bench for review

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled its 1967 judgment in the Azeez Basha case, which had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) the status of a minority institution. The verdict, delivered by a 4:3 majority, directs that the matter of AMU’s minority status be reconsidered by a new bench. This new bench will specifically review the validity of the 2006 Allahabad High Court verdict, which struck down the university’s minority status granted by the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981. The court has ordered that the judicial records of the case be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the formation of this fresh bench.

The 1967 Azeez Basha ruling had concluded that AMU, created by a central government law (the AMU Act of 1920), could not be categorized as a minority institution. The judgment noted that AMU’s status as a central university excluded it from being considered a religious or linguistic minority institution under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. This article provides the right to minorities to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice. In the wake of this decision, AMU was unable to benefit from the constitutional privileges accorded to minority educational institutions, including administrative autonomy and exemption from certain reservation requirements.

Despite the 1967 decision, the Indian Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981, which granted AMU minority status. This was done in response to the university's long-standing assertion that it should be treated as a minority institution based on its Muslim character and heritage. The 1981 amendment was challenged, and in 2006, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the university could not be considered a minority institution, stating that the 1981 law granting AMU minority status was unconstitutional. This led to further legal battles and ambiguity regarding the university’s constitutional standing.

In its Friday ruling, the Supreme Court overruled the 1967 judgment, stating that the matter needed a fresh examination in light of more recent legal perspectives. The bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, emphasized that the question of AMU’s minority status should now be decided based on the principles outlined in the present case, rather than relying on outdated legal interpretations. The decision also referenced the need for the new bench to evaluate the 2006 Allahabad High Court judgment and its implications for AMU’s legal status.

The court’s majority opinion, delivered by CJI Chandrachud, was joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. The dissenting opinion, which rejected the overruling of the 1967 decision, was written by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma. These differences in judicial views underscore the complexity of the case and its constitutional implications.

Following the ruling, AMU’s Public Relations Officer, Omar Peerzada, issued a statement expressing the university’s respect for the court’s decision. Peerzada reiterated AMU’s commitment to its educational mission, which he said continues to focus on academic excellence, nation-building, and inclusivity. The university clarified that it would examine the details of the judgment and would respond comprehensively once it had completed a full review of the court’s reasoning and implications.

The implications of this case go beyond the legal standing of AMU. As a minority institution, AMU would have greater autonomy in governance, including the freedom to appoint its own governing bodies, set its own admission policies, and decide on fee structures. It would also be exempt from certain reservation requirements for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), though it must still admit students from non-minority communities if it receives state financial assistance. These benefits are crucial for institutions like AMU, which seek to preserve their unique identity while contributing to broader educational development. The ongoing legal proceedings will shape AMU’s future, determining its ability to operate as an autonomous institution and its role in India’s higher education landscape.