CJI Chandrachud’s last working day: Is AMU a minority institution? 7-judge bench to rule today

Without minority status, AMU will have to begin implementing reservation policies for both teachers and students in a similar manner as other public universities. If this status is granted, the university can provide up to 50% reservation for Muslim students. Currently, AMU does not follow any reservation policies of the state. However, it does have an internal reservation policy, where 50% of seats are reserved for students who have studied in its affiliated schools or colleges.

The bench, which also includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna (the incoming CJI), Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and S C Sharma, heard arguments over the course of eight days between January 10 and February 1 this year.

This issue was decided once before by the Supreme Court. In 1967, in the case of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that AMU was not a minority institution. It referred to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, which established the university and held that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim community – a requirement for minority educational institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

An amendment to the AMU Act in 1981 stated that the university had been “established by the Muslims of India”. In 2005, the university, claiming minority status, reserved 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students.

The Allahabad High Court struck down the reservation policy and the 1981 amendment, holding that AMU was not a minority institution. This verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court, and in 2019 the case was referred to a seven-judge bench to decide if the verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India required reconsideration.

The Centre, which withdrew from the appeal in 2016 and is now arguing against AMU’s minority status, stated that AMU never possessed minority status. It said that when AMU was established in 1920 under an imperial legislation, it relinquished its religious status and has not been administered by the Muslim minority ever since.

The Centre also stated that S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India was a case specific decision and will not have any bearing on the minority status of other institutions.

The petitioners, on the other hand, have argued that it does not matter who is in charge of the university’s administration, and that Article 30 (1) gives minorities the right to choose who is in charge of administration without affecting the minority status of the institution in question.

They also argued that the court’s decision in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India was contradictory as the court had held that for university degrees to be valid, the university would have to be recognised by a statute (such as the AMU Act). However, the court also held that recognition by a statute would strip AMU of its minority status. Accepting this decision would impact the minority status of other minority institutions established under a law.