November 8, 2024: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its 1967 judgment that denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) the status of a minority institution. The top court, by a 4-3 majority, ruled that the question of whether AMU qualifies as a minority institution would be decided by a new three-judge bench.

The case revolves around the 1967 ruling in Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which held that AMU could not claim minority status because it was established through a statute. However, the Supreme Court, in its latest judgment, clarified that an institution should not forfeit its minority status simply because it was regulated or governed by an act of Parliament.

The majority judgment, delivered by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on his final working day, observed that “Merely because AMU was incorporated by an imperial legislation, it does not negate the fact that it was established by a minority community.” The judgment further emphasized that the university’s founding by a statute does not diminish its status as a minority institution, especially since the statute was passed for its establishment, not to negate its minority identity.

The judgment was supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Major Misra, with Chief Justice Chandrachud. However, there was dissent from Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and SC Sharma, who disagreed with the majority view.

This decision marks a significant shift in the legal understanding of minority institutions in India. It follows a 2006 ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed that AMU was not a minority institution. The top court's latest judgment, however, sets the stage for further deliberations on this issue by a new bench, which will specifically address whether AMU qualifies for minority status under the Indian Constitution.

In his concluding remarks, Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted the importance of ensuring that the status of minority institutions is not decided in a vacuum and must consider the broader historical and constitutional context. His ruling has reignited the debate about the rights of minority educational institutions and their autonomy in India.