Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Granting Minority Status To Aligarh Muslim University

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench of 7 Judges led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud today reserved its decision on the issue of granting minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The bench heard the arguments from both sides for 8 days.

The Constitution Bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma was hearing a reference arising out of the 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which held that AMU was not a minority institution. In 2019, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a 7-judge bench. One of the issues which arise in the case is whether a University, established and governed by a statute (AMU Act 1920), can claim minority status. The correctness of the 1967 judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India (5-judge bench) which rejected the minority status of AMU and the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which accorded minority status to the University, also arose in the reference.

Representing AMU and the AMU Old Boys' Association, were Senior Advocates Dr Rajeev Dhavan and Mr Kapil Sibal along with Mr Salman Khurshid, Mr Shadan Farasat who appeared on behalf of intervenors.

The Union of India was represented by the Attorney General Mr R Venkataramani as well as the Solicitor General Mr Tushar Mehta. Several other senior advocates including Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Mr Vinay Navare, Mr. Yatinder Singh, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee (ASG) and Mr KM Nataraj (ASG) also appeared to advance arguments on behalf of respondents and intervenors.

Throughout the 8 days long round of hearing, several key aspects of deliberation were put before the bench and the bar. Ranging from the interpretation of Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, its interplay with Entry 63 of List 1, the legislative history of AMU, and analysis of the various Amendment Acts from 1951 up to 1981 undertaken to the original 1920 AMU Act.

A detailed report on arguments presented on DAY 8 can be found here.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Reports of previous hearings :

Aligarh Muslim University Case | Historic Antecedents Of Institute Must Be Seen To Assess Minority Status, AMU Tells Supreme Court [Day 1]

What Extent Of Minority Presence Required In Administration To Claim Protection Of Article 30? Supreme Court Discusses In AMU Case [Day 2]

Article 30 Not Intended To Ghettoise Minorities, Minority Institution Can Include Others In Administration: Supreme Court In AMU Case Hearing [Day 3]

AMU Continued As Institution Of National Importance, Why Minority Status Important? Supreme Court Asks [Day 3]

AMU Minority Status Case | Article 30 Not A Mere Enabling Provision, It's An Obligation On StateSays Supreme Court [Hearing Day 4]

AMU Surrendered Rights To British, Argues Centre; Political Inclination Of Founders Immaterial For Minority Status, Says Supreme Court [Day 4]

How Can A Law Officer Say He Won't Support An Amendment Passed By Parliament? Supreme Court Asks Solicitor General In AMU Case [Day 5]

Mere Fact Of AMU Being Established By British Law Doesn't Indicate Surrender Of Minority Status, Says Supreme Court [Day 5]

AMU Institution Of National Importance, Minority Status Will Exclude SC/ST/OBC Reservations: Centre Tells Supreme Court [Day 6]

AMU Case: To 'Muslims Not Minority In 1920' Argument, Supreme Court Says Present Day Standards Relevant [Day 6]

'Let's Not Dilute Parliament's Powers' : Supreme Court On Arguments Against 1981 Amendment To AMU Act [Day 7]