• A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court overturned its 1967 decision in the Azeez Basha case that denied minority status for the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), holding that its status would need to be re-assessed based on principles and direction defined in the present judgment.

• The court issued four separate judgments, with the Chief Justice writing the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. 

• However, three judges — Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma — presented dissenting opinions. 

Highlights of the judgment:

Supreme Court Ruling on Minority Status: A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), ruled that a legislation or an executive action that discriminated against religious or linguistic minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions, was ultra vires Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The view taken in Azeez Basha vs Union of India (1967) that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled.

Article 30 deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. Article 30(1) says all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Review Ordered: The Supreme Court directed that case papers be placed before the CJI to potentially set up a new bench to review the validity of the 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling that had invalidated the 1981 law granting AMU minority status.

1981 Amendment’s Insufficiency: The court observed that the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which aimed to re-establish AMU’s minority status, fell short of fully restoring the university’s original character as a minority institution before the 1951 changes.

Timeline of the AMU minority status legal row

• The imperial legislature passed the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, 1920.

• The AMU Act was amended by the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1951, and AMU (Amendment) Act, 1965.

• In 1967, a five-judge Constitution bench in the Azeez Basha vs Union of India case held that since AMU was a central university, it cannot be considered a minority institution.

• In 1981, a two-judge bench of the apex court questioned the correctness of the verdict in the Azeez Basha case and referred the matter to a bench of seven judges.

• AMU got back its minority status when Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981.

• In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which AMU was accorded the minority status. Later, appeals were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the high court verdict.

• In February 2019, a three-judge bench of the apex court referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.

• On January 9, 2024, a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud commenced hearing arguments on the vexed question of minority status of AMU.

• On February 1, 2024, the seven-judge bench reserved its verdict on the issue. 

Different cases in Supreme Court related to minority community

T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case (2002)

• This landmark case examined the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.

• The Supreme Court ruled that both religious and linguistic minorities should be identified on a state-by-state basis, rather than at the national level, for the purposes of Article 30. This meant that what constitutes a minority community could vary from one state to another.

• This interpretation provided clarity for minority communities in establishing educational institutions, acknowledging regional diversity within the definition of minorities.

Bal Patil Case (2005)

• The Supreme Court, in its judgment in the Bal Patil case, revisited the principles set forth in the T.M.A. Pai ruling.

• The court reiterated that the unit for determining the minority status of religious and linguistic communities should be the “state”, as established in the T.M.A. Pai case.

• This judgment further solidified the stance that minority status is state-specific, reinforcing state-level autonomy in determining the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions.

P.A. Inamdar Case (2005)

• The Inamdar case addressed issues around state-imposed reservations in private unaided institutions, including professional colleges.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the state could not enforce its reservation policies on private unaided minority or non-minority educational institutions. The court declared that reservation in such institutions, particularly those unaided and private, was unconstitutional.

• This decision protected the autonomy of private and minority institutions from state-imposed reservation policies, allowing them greater independence in admissions and administration.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)