Intent is paramount: SC paves way for AMU’s minority status, overturns 1967 ruling

In a historic judgment, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a 4:3 majority ruling, paving the way for Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) to potentially regain its minority status.

The verdict overturns a 1967 Supreme Court decision, S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which had ruled that AMU, incorporated under a statute, could not be classified as a minority institution.

Although the final determination on AMU's minority status is yet to be made, this judgment establishes foundational guidelines for identifying educational institutions entitled to minority status under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The case addresses the complex question of how the term “established” should be interpreted under Article 30(1). This article grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, allowing such institutions special rights, including the ability to set aside a portion of seats for students from their communities.

The court’s majority opinion argues that the definition of "established" should be expanded, proposing that the true intent and origin of an institution—specifically whether it was founded by a minority community—should be considered.

According to the ruling, an institution's establishment must be assessed based on the intent, background, and funding sources, not solely on the legal documentation that accompanied its formation, paving the way for AMU to retain its minority status.

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who authored the majority opinion on his final working day, articulated that merely because AMU was incorporated through legislation—the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920—does not preclude it from being regarded as a minority institution.

The majority’s view is that an imperial statute or legislative act should not automatically negate minority status if the institution was indeed founded by a minority group with the intent to serve that community. The majority verdict concluded that if an institution is substantially created by a minority and intended to serve its educational interests, it should not be stripped of minority status simply due to subsequent statutory recognition.

The court reviewed historical claims of AMU’s establishment, including an amendment to the AMU Act in 1981, which declared that the university had been “established by the Muslims of India.”

However, in 2006, the Allahabad High Court ruled against this interpretation, holding that AMU could not be considered a minority institution. This ruling halted AMU’s then-policy of reserving 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students, a decision AMU challenged in the Supreme Court. Following an appeal in 2019, the case was referred to a larger bench to reconsider the 1967 decision’s precedential impact.

The Centre’s stance has shifted over time. Initially supportive of AMU’s minority status, the government later withdrew from the appeal in 2016 and argued that AMU’s creation under a statute disqualified it from minority classification.

According to the Centre, incorporation by an imperial statute meant that AMU forfeited its identity as a minority institution and, consequently, must comply with public university reservation policies.

The recent majority judgment, however, refutes the notion that statutory incorporation overrides the community's intent behind founding an institution. The majority also held that interpreting Article 30(1) based on legislative language alone would undermine the right it protects, effectively making the fundamental right to establish and manage minority institutions subordinate to statutory rules.

The majority opinion emphasises that determining minority status should focus on the founders' identity and purpose, rather than the legal mechanism used to formalise the institution's existence.

Three justices—Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma—dissented, maintaining that statutory incorporation impacts AMU’s classification and does not align with the broad interpretation proposed by the majority.

The implications of this judgment are far-reaching. Should AMU be recognised as a minority institution, it will gain the authority to reserve up to 50% of seats for Muslim students, exempting it from national reservation policies applicable to public universities.