Supreme Court Overturns 1967 Ruling, Orders Fresh Review Of Aligarh Muslim University’s Minority Status

The Supreme Court's ruling also reignites a historic debate about AMU’s unique place within India's educational and cultural landscape

0
amu

In a 4-3 split decision, the Supreme Court of India has overruled the historic 1967 judgment that barred the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) from claiming minority status, leaving the door open for a fresh determination of its constitutional status. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, while Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma offered dissenting views. The minority status issue will now be examined anew by a three-judge bench, applying the legal principles established in the latest judgment.

The case, pivotal in defining the legal status of AMU under India’s constitution, draws upon constitutional interpretations that have evolved since the institution’s founding as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Originally intended to serve the Muslim community, the college became Aligarh Muslim University in 1920 under British rule. Its minority status has remained contentious, frequently challenging both parliamentary legislative intent and judicial interpretation.

During the hearings, which spanned eight days and concluded on February 1, the bench delved into the complexities surrounding AMU’s status. CJI Chandrachud raised critical questions about the scope of the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which had aimed to reestablish the university’s minority status. “One thing which is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position as it stood prior to 1951,” remarked Justice Chandrachud, questioning the extent to which the amendment reinstated AMU’s original identity and purpose.

The AMU Act of 1920 had initially recognized the institution as a Muslim-majority university with a commitment to teaching and residential education, including compulsory religious instruction for Muslim students. However, the 1951 amendment curtailed this provision, stripping away elements that underscored its religious identity. The 1981 amendment was an attempt to remedy this, but according to the majority opinion, it was only a “half-hearted job” that failed to fully address the changes made in 1951.

In their separate judgments, the dissenting justices underscored the importance of judicial restraint in altering long-standing interpretations of laws that affect institutions with deep-rooted historical and cultural significance. The dissent suggests a cautious approach to redefining AMU’s legal status, with emphasis on ensuring that legislative, rather than judicial, action be the primary avenue for any changes.

The upcoming three-judge panel will closely examine AMU’s minority status in light of this new ruling. The court’s decision marks a critical turning point in the long-standing debate, as India’s judiciary continues to grapple with the delicate balance between constitutional protections for minority institutions and the broader national interest.

The Supreme Court’s ruling also reignites a historic debate about AMU’s unique place within India’s educational and cultural landscape, as Parliament and the judiciary are again called upon to clarify the university’s role and identity in modern India.