The Supreme Court of India is about to make a decision on whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) should be considered a minority institution. A special group of seven judges, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, will deliver the ruling. This issue goes back to a 2006 decision by the Allahabad High Court, which did not accept a 1981 law that had given AMU minority status.
In February, the group of seven judges listened to arguments from top government lawyers, including Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the government's side. Senior lawyers like Rajiv Dhawan and Kapil Sibal spoke on behalf of those who support AMU being recognised as a minority institution. Besides Chief Justice Chandrachud, the panel of judges includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and SC Sharma.
Should AMU keep its minority status or follow the 2006 court ruling?
In 1981, Parliament passed a law to give Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status. This was done because, in an earlier 1967 case called the Azeez Basha case, the Supreme Court had ruled that AMU, being a Central university, could not be a minority institution. Now, the question is whether the 1981 law from Parliament granting AMU minority status should be upheld or if the Allahabad High Court’s 2006 decision, which did not accept this status, should be followed instead.
Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that an educational institution should still be considered a minority institution even if it has to follow rules set by the central or state government. Just because it follows these regulations doesn’t mean it should lose its minority status.
One surprising part of this case was the government’s opinion on the 1981 amendment that made AMU a minority institution. The Solicitor General, who spoke for the government, stated that they do not fully agree with this amendment, even though it was passed by Parliament. Justice Sanjiv Khanna questioned this, directly asking the Solicitor General, "Is the government accepting the amendment?"
Mehta replied, "I am not," implying the government’s view that the amendment may not be valid. In response, CJI Chandrachud noted the unusual nature of this argument, stating, "This will be radical because a law officer would be then telling us that he does not abide by what the Parliament has done. You ought to stand by what the Parliament has done."
CJI Chandrachud stressed the importance of Parliament’s authority in law-making, saying, "Parliament is undoubtedly supreme in its law-making function and can always amend a statute. Can we hear any organ of the Union Government say that it does not accept the amendment brought in by Parliament? Parliament is an eternal, indivisible, and indestructible entity under democracy."
Mehta also clarified that his stance was based on an affidavit filed by the government and not his personal position. This complex case is now set for a final judgement from the Supreme Court, which may have lasting implications on the interpretation of minority rights for educational institutions regulated by the government.