7 Key Insights on AMU's Minority Status from SC's Recent Ruling

In a historic ruling, a seven-judge panel of the Indian Supreme Court reexamined the controversial question of Aligarh Muslim University's (AMU) minority status. By a majority vote of 4:3, the Court reversed its 1967 ruling in S Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which had previously maintained that a statutory institution could not claim minority status.

Under the leadership of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the majority opinion emphasized that an institution's eligibility under Article 30, which safeguards minorities' rights to create and run educational institutions, should be determined by its origin and "founding mind." The final issue regarding AMU's minority status has now been sent to a regular bench for factual analysis.

7 Key Takeaways from SC Ruling

Here are 7 Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the issue of AMU’s minority status:

1. Overturning the Azeez Basha Judgment: A 7-judge Supreme Court bench, in a 4:3 split, overturned the 1967 S. Azeez Basha vs Union of India judgment. The earlier ruling stated that institutions established by legislation could not claim minority status.
2. Minority Status Decision Deferred: While overturning the Azeez Basha judgment, the court didn’t rule on whether AMU is a minority institution, leaving this question to be reviewed by a regular bench for further investigation into AMU’s historical origins.
3. Article 30 Interpretation: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, led the majority opinion. The opinion clarified that minority status should not be automatically revoked for institutions established by legislation. The ruling stressed on the importance of understanding the minority community’s role in founding the institution.
4. Importance of the “Founding Mind”: The majority view highlighted that determining minority status involves identifying the “founding mind” behind the institution. If the founding entity is a minority community, Article 30 protections may apply.
5. Establishment vs. Formal Incorporation: The court explained that an institution’s incorporation by law does not cancel its minority status. Creating a university through legislation does not change the identity of its original founders.
6. Criteria for Minority Status: The court ruled that a minority institution’s purpose doesn’t need to serve its community solely, nor does its administration have to be exclusively managed by the minority.
7. Dissenting Opinion and Legal Complexity: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma dissented, expressing different interpretations on Article 30’s application. The ruling also referenced the complex procedural history of AMU’s minority status, including the TMA Pai case and the Union of India’s arguments both for and against AMU’s claim to minority status.

This verdict is seen as a historic judgment because of its nature and importance in society. It changed the interpretation of the Article 30 of the constitution.