New Batch Registration: 5-June & 16-June 2025 Weekend Batch Registration: 7th June 2025
+91 8988885050, 8988886060
To avoid waiting, Register now & grab token number. Limited seats available. Some fraud and fake institutions using our identical names like Vajirao / Bajirao to lure other students. Kindly be aware of them & Stay alert ‼

Aligarh Muslim University minority status case: 3 key legal issues argued before the Supreme Court from Vajirao & Reddy Institute

By : Author Desk Updated : 2024-02-02 14:31:31

Aligarh Muslim University minority status case: 3 key legal issues argued before the Supreme Court

Context- The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, has concluded hearings on whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution. The seven-judge bench will also consider if the 1967 decision in S Azeez Basha v Union of India, which declared AMU as not a minority institution, should be overturned. The court heard arguments for eight days from January 10 to February 1, and has now reserved its judgement. What is the effect of a statute on minority status?
  • Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
  • However, in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in S Azeez Basha v Union of India that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was established by law (the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920), not by the Muslim community, and therefore does not qualify for minority status.
  • Petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, argued that this decision creates a contradiction: for a university’s degrees to be valid, it must be recognized by a statute (like the AMU Act), but such recognition would strip the university of its minority status.
  • This would force all minority institutions to seek statutory recognition and relinquish their minority status, rendering Article 30 ineffective and subordinating a fundamental right to a statute.
  • Respondents, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that AMU voluntarily surrendered its minority status to the British government, choosing to be a “loyalist” institution rather than a “nationalist” one (like Jamia Millia Islamia University). According to Mehta, this surrender of rights was recognized in the Azeez Basha decision.
How does the administration of AMU impact its minority status?
  • Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that the administration of a minority institution can be led by individuals who are not members of the minority community.
  • He stated that Article 30(1) of the Constitution allows minorities to choose their administrators without affecting the institution’s minority status.
  • On the other hand, the respondents argued that the administration of AMU must be considered in this context. They pointed out that when AMU was first established, the British government had ultimate control over the university through the Lord Rector.
  • Although the University Court handled daily administration, their decisions were subject to the approval of the Lord Rector, who was a representative of the British government. This, they argued, indicated that the British government had significant control over the university’s administration.
Should the 1981 amendment be considered in this case?
  • The 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which stated that AMU was established by the Muslim community and emphasized the need to advance the education of Muslims in India, was struck down by the Allahabad High Court in 2005.
  • The court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution as per the Azeez Basha decision and that the 1981 amendment was enacted to override this decision. This ruling was challenged in the Supreme Court and referred to a larger bench in 2006.
  • Petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Shadan Farasat, argued that there is no need to examine the validity of the 1981 amendment and the Allahabad HC decision.
  • They contended that if Azeez Basha is struck down, the 1981 amendment becomes redundant as AMU’s minority status would be recognized. If Azeez Basha is upheld, the amendment will be considered along with the Allahabad HC decision by a smaller bench.
  • Farasat also argued that the 1981 amendment cannot be considered in this hearing without the Union of India defending it.
  • Respondents, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, argued that the seven-judge bench should consider this case to avoid multiple hearings on the same subject.
  • They claimed that the petitioners see the 1981 amendment as a second chance to argue for AMU’s minority status if Azeez Basha is upheld. Kaul further argued that Parliament’s attempt to use the 1981 amendment to override the court’s findings in Azeez Basha is impermissible according to previous Supreme Court judgements.
  • This led to an exchange between Chief Justice Chandrachud and Mehta, where the Chief Justice questioned how the government could choose not to support an amendment enacted by Parliament.
  • Mehta responded that the Allahabad HC decision provided the central government with a basis for this argument.
Conclusion- The Supreme Court of India has concluded hearings on the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) under Article 30 of the Constitution. The case hinges on whether the 1967 decision in S Azeez Basha v Union of India, which ruled that AMU is not a minority institution, should be overturned. The petitioners and respondents presented arguments revolving around the interpretation of Article 30, the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, and the historical context of AMU’s establishment. The court’s decision will have significant implications for the interpretation of minority rights and the administration of educational institutions in India. The judgement is now reserved and eagerly awaited.