The Supreme Court of India has once again placed Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) at the centre of a constitutional crossroads, issuing a judgment with potentially far-reaching implications for educational autonomy and minority rights. This verdict reopens a contentious legal narrative that began with the Azeez Basha ruling of 1967, where AMU’s minority status was denied on the basis that it was established by a legislative act, rather than the Muslim community itself. The present ruling reconsiders whether this statutory origin precludes AMU from claiming protections under Article 30, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The Judgment
The 1967 Supreme Court Judgement in Azeez Basha vs Union of India held that AMU cannot claim minority status as the university was established by a statute In the judgment on Friday, the top court held that an institution would not lose its minority status because the government brought to a law to regulate or govern it. The judgment was pronounced by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on his last working day.
“Merely because the AMU was incorporated by imperial legislation would not mean that it was not established by a minority. It cannot be argued that the university was established by Parliament merely because the statute says it was passed to establish the university,” the majority judgment said.
The court said that whether an institution is a minority or not, it needs to look at who established the institution.”The court has to consider the genesis of the institute and the court must see who was the brain behind the establishment of the institution. It has to be seen who got funds for the land and if the minority community helped,” the court said.
“To be a minority institution, it only had to be established by the minority and not necessarily be administered by the minority members. Minority institutions may wish to emphasise secular education and for that, minority members are not needed in administration,” the court ruled.
The Crux of the Legal Challenge
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution was designed to empower minorities to preserve their distinct culture through educational initiatives. The debate surrounding AMU’s status touches on core questions: Does legislative establishment negate the claim to being a minority institution? Or can such institutions retain minority character despite statutory regulation?
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized during hearings that statutory frameworks do not inherently strip away the minority character if they serve community interests in education. “Regulation by statute does not erase the origins or intent behind the establishment of an institution,” he noted. This distinction becomes crucial, as the court revisited whether AMU’s transformation from the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College to a university under a parliamentary act necessarily severs its link to its Muslim heritage.
Balancing Regulation and Minority Autonomy
This ruling does more than scrutinize AMU’s origins—it explores the constitutional tension between state control and minority autonomy. The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, argued that Azeez Basha unfairly restricted minority institutions by asserting that state legislation equates to state control. This interpretation, they claimed, undermines the spirit of Article 30 and disregards the community’s historical role in building AMU. Dhavan also highlighted the pivotal T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002), where an 11-judge bench recognized that minority institutions can accept state regulation without losing their character, suggesting a nuanced balance between autonomy and oversight.
Implications for Educational Institutions Nationwide
This decision is more than a historical reckoning for AMU. Its outcome could influence how other minority-run institutions define their rights and navigate state regulation. As debates around reservation policies, cultural preservation, and equal educational access persist, the ruling underscores a larger question: Can a minority institution retain its character while being subject to state legislation? The answer has implications for India’s pluralistic educational ethos and minority representation within public institutions.
What Lies Ahead?
The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a fresh lens through which we examine the balance of power, rights, and historical legacies in India’s educational fabric. Is AMU’s unique history a compelling reason to acknowledge its minority status, or does statutory establishment override this claim?
