File Pic
The Supreme Court of India, in a 4:3 majority decision, overruled the 1967 verdict in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case, which had ruled that since Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is a central university, it could not be considered a minority institution, according to ANI.
The majority opinion stated that the issue of AMU's minority status should be decided by a regular three-judge bench, as per ANI. The bench noted that the key factor in determining whether an institution qualifies as a minority institution is to identify who established the institution. It further clarified that the administration of an institution by non-minority members would not strip the institution of its minority character. The verdict also affirmed that while the government has the right to regulate minority educational institutions, it must ensure that such regulation does not infringe on the institution's minority status.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) authored the majority opinion, which was supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JD Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. The dissenting opinion came from Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma, according to ANI.
This decision arose from a reference to a 2006 ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which held that AMU was not a minority institution, according to ANI. In 1967, a five-judge bench had ruled in the S Azeez Basha case that AMU, being a central university, could not be considered a minority institution. However, the university regained its minority status when the Indian Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981.
The 1981 amendment was challenged in 2006 when the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision that accorded AMU its minority status. The Congress-led UPA government at the time appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. In addition, AMU filed a separate petition. In 2016, the Narendra Modi-led NDA government decided to withdraw the appeal made by the UPA government, according to ANI.
In February 2019, the top court referred the case to a seven-judge bench. During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that there was no concept of minority or minority rights when the AMU Act was established in 1920. The government contended that conferring minority status on an institution of national importance would exclude sections of society and hinder access to reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (SEBC), according to ANI.
(With inputs from ANI)
