Chief Justice DY Chandrachud of the Supreme Court will be retiring this Friday. On that same day, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will announce its decision on whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. In 2006, the Allahabad High Court determined that AMU, founded by a royal decree in 1920, is not classified as a minority institution.
This case was heard by a constitutional bench of 7 judges in the Supreme Court. Following 8 days of case hearings, the Supreme Court postponed its ruling in February. In this case, there have been 11 petitions submitted. The original petition was submitted by Aligarh University via the registrar. Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajiv Dhawan, and MR Shamshad represented the petitioners in the case, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, and Rakesh Dwivedi argued on the opposing side.
The Supreme Court had previously issued a ruling in this matter. In 1967, during the case of S Aziz Basha vs Union of India, a 5-judge Constitution Bench determined that AMU does not qualify as a minority institution. The bench referenced the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920. The university was founded under this Act and maintained that AMU was not created by the Muslim community nor governed by the Muslim community. In 1981, a revision to the AMU Act declared that the university was ‘founded by the Muslims of India’. Later, in 2005, the university allocated 50% of seats in postgraduate medical programs for Muslim students, asserting minority status.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Chief Justice-designate Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Suryakant, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manoj Mishra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
In this instance, the Allahabad High Court invalidated the reservation policy and the 1981 amendment, declaring that AMU does not qualify as a minority institution. This ruling was contested in the Supreme Court. The petitioners contend that the identity of the university’s administration leader is irrelevant, and Article 30(1) provides minorities the right to select their administrators without impacting the minority status of the institution in question.