In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Friday, November 8, ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is entitles to a minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution which empowers the religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Friday delivered four separate judgements in the Aligarh Muslim University minority status case.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, who headed the bench, said there were four separate opinions, including three dissenting verdicts.
The CJI said he has written the majority verdict for himself and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
Justice Chandrachud said Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma have penned their separate dissenting verdicts. The pronouncement of the verdict is underway.
The bench also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma had reserved its verdict on the question on February 1 after hearing arguments for eight days.
On February 1, grappling with the intractable issue of the AMU’s minority status, the top court said the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which effectively accorded it a minority status, only did a “half-hearted job” and did not restore to the institution the position it had prior to 1951.
While the AMU Act, 1920 speaks about incorporating a teaching and residential Muslim university in Aligarh, the 1951 amendment does away with compulsory religious instructions for the Muslim students at the university.
The vexed question has repeatedly tested Parliament’s legislative acumen and judiciary’s prowess in interpreting complex laws involving the institution that was founded in 1875 as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by prominent Muslim community members led by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Years later in 1920, it transformed into a university under the British Raj.
“One thing which is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position as it stood prior to 1951. In other words, the 1981 amendment does a half-hearted job,” Justice Chandrachud had said while proceeding to close the arguments.
“I can understand if the 1981 amendment had said… okay, we are going back to the original 1920 statute, confer complete minority character on this (institution),” the CJI had said.
