The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split, has set aside its judgment in the Azeez Basha case that was handed in 1967, effectively stripping Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) of its minority status. This decision orders that AMU’s minority status be reviewed with reference to principles laid down in the current case.
Four judges were in the majority comprised of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice JB Pardiwala, as well as Justice Manoj Misra who declared Azeez Basha’s decision as ultra vires. The Court said that it has to rule on the status of AMU while insisting that the evaluation has to be done based on the new regulation set within this sentence.
The majority opinion directed that the matter be referred to the CJI to constitute an appropriate bench to consider the matter and hear the correctness of the Allahabad High Court judgment passed in 2006, raising the question of AMU’s status.
The majority held that a number of legal factors can be used to establish that an institution is a minority, but they did not make a factual decision about whether or not AMU was a minority. The CJI clarified that a minority institution must meet two criteria: it also means it has to be owned and run by a minority group.
He stressed that institutions that were established prior to the adoption of the Constitution are equally protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which entails minorities’ freedom to set up and manage schools of their choice.
Additionally, the State Constitution is not the only means of minority status. According to Justice Chandrachud, the institution that grants minority status should not done under the parliamentary legislation. However, it is not limited to those factors. Still, it depends on such factors as whether an institution serves minority interests and whether an institution has a clear minority complexion in its work.
Procedural concerns were pointed out by the dissenting voice of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. They claimed that the referral made in 1981 was unsustainable because only a two-bench cannot refer it directly to the seven-bench.
Join our whatsapp group for Latest updates