Supreme Court Revisits Aligarh Muslim University's Minority Status, Overturns 1967 Judgment

The Supreme Court has overruled its 1967 judgment denying Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status, reopening the case for reassessment by a three-judge bench. This decision marks a critical turn in AMU's decades-long legal battle for recognition as a minority institution.

The Supreme Court, in a significant decision by a 4-3 majority, has overturned its 1967 ruling in the S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India case, which had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) the status of a minority institution. The ruling now leaves the matter of AMU's minority status open for a fresh examination by a three-judge bench, which will apply the new legal principles outlined in this latest decision.

A seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, delivered four separate opinions, with Chief Justice Chandrachud authoring the majority opinion. Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra concurred with him, while Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma issued dissenting judgments.

The case touches on the complexities surrounding the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which recognized AMU as a minority institution but did not fully restore its pre-1951 status. The court scrutinized whether this amendment sufficiently granted AMU the autonomy to qualify as a minority institution under Indian law. Founded in 1875 as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, AMU’s identity has since been a point of legal and political debate.

Representatives for AMU, including senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued for the university’s minority status, noting that its governance structure still reflects its foundational identity. The central government, however, countered that AMU’s significant public funding and status as a national institution preclude such a designation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Concluding Years-Long Legal Battle

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the protracted legal journey of AMU, with implications for its autonomy and identity as a minority institution.