AMU Minority Status | Judgement Matrix

On 8 November 2024, the Supreme Court laid down parameters determining the minority status of an educational institution established by a religious or linguistic minority under Article 30. This Article states that “all minorities…have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”. The parameters were established by a seven-judge bench which deliberated AMU’s minority status. The decision had four opinions. The majority decision was authored by former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on behalf of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma penned dissenting opinions. 

The case was referred to a seven-judge bench in two instances. The first time, by a two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v District Inspector of Schools (1981). The second referral was in 2019 by a three-judge bench led by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. His bench was hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court decision which held that AMU could not reserve seats for Muslim students in its post-graduate medical courses as it did not have a minority status. The High Court had relied on Azeez Basha v Union of India (1967) where a five-judge bench held that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim community and was therefore, not a minority institution. 

Azeez Basha had observed that the ruling British government had established AMU through a Union statute—the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. In November 2024, the seven-judge bench struck down Azeez Basha. A smaller bench will determine the minority status of AMU based on the parameters laid down by the majority. Read our judgement summary here. 

Our judgement matrix breaks down the key issues and what was held by each judge.