In a closely contested 4:3 verdict, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling overturns a previous 1967 Supreme Court judgment in the S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India case, which had denied AMU minority status on the grounds that it was established by a statutory act rather than by a minority community.

Background of the Case

The case, initially sparked by a 2006 Allahabad High Court decision, questioned AMU’s entitlement to minority status. The 7-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on his final day in office, reviewed the decision. The ruling examined whether AMU, incorporated through an act of parliament in 1920, was indeed founded by a minority community and, if so, if it could retain minority status despite being established through legislation.

The 1967 ruling in the S. Azeez Basha case had held that AMU was not a minority institution since it was created by statute rather than by an individual or community. However, in today’s decision, the majority opinion redefined the criteria for determining minority status, asserting that AMU’s establishment by the Muslim community could qualify it as a minority institution even if formalized by legislative action.

Key Points from the Ruling

In this 4:3 majority ruling, the Court established that:

1. Founding Community’s Role: The Court emphasized that the minority status of an institution should consider who ideated and funded its establishment, rather than simply who legislated its incorporation.
2. Non-Exclusive Benefit to Minorities: The institution’s establishment by a minority community does not imply exclusivity for that community but does validate its minority character.
3. Administration by Minorities Not Essential: The Court clarified that minority status does not require that the institution be administered solely by members of the founding minority. Instead, secular administration may be acceptable.

The ruling lays out that S. Azeez Basha was overly formalistic in its interpretation and that this rigidity undermined the intent of Article 30. The bench asserted that the presence of legislation does not negate the involvement of a minority community in the founding of the university.

Implications of the Ruling

This decision permits AMU to continue its policy of reserving seats for Muslim students and confirms its right to claim minority status. Additionally, the ruling paves the way for a regular bench to reassess the 2006 Allahabad High Court verdict, which had concluded that AMU could not reserve 50% of its medical postgraduate seats for Muslim candidates. By reaffirming Article 30’s protective intent for minority institutions, the ruling also has broader implications for similar institutions across India.

A Historic Moment for the Judiciary and the Nation

This ruling marks a significant and historical conclusion to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure. It underscores the Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of constitutional protections for minority communities and emphasizes the importance of historical and community contexts over purely statutory considerations.

The judgment is expected to be pivotal in guiding how minority status claims are assessed for educational institutions, potentially impacting future rulings and clarifying the scope of Article 30 rights for minority communities in India.