Important Supreme Court judgment on Aligarh Muslim University
The Supreme Court in its ruling has upheld the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). On Friday, however, the court referred the issue of AMU’s minority status to a new bench. Further, in 1967, it overturned the decision of a five-judge bench which said AMU could not be considered a minority institution as it was created under a central law. It was also made clear that today’s decision would not be accepted either.
Today’s judgment means that the Supreme Court has annulled the 1967 judgment and the court has also made it clear that the decision to grant minority status to AMU will be taken by a joint bench of 3 judges. The case will have a new hearing. A seven-judge bench took the decision. In the majority decision, it was said that if it was taken by the minority, then it should be given minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution.
In this way, the Constitutional Bench composed of seven judges of the Supreme Court maintained the status quo through a 4-3 decision, without deciding whether to retain minority status. The new bench will take a decision on this.
The situation has changed due to the center booth change
In 2016, the central government (NDA government) changed its stance on AMU not being built by minorities. Even the terms and conditions are not decided by a minority. Therefore, it is clear from today’s judgment that today’s judgment on the status of minorities by the judges of the Seventh Chamber and the judgment handed down by the judges of the Fifth Chamber in 1967 will no longer be valid. Now, a new bench of three judges will decide on the university’s status and terms and conditions.
The court in its judgment made it clear that AMU should be given minority status, but also made it clear that this was an earlier decision and would be annulled today. The seven-judge bench also decided that a bench of ordinary judges would hear the case and decide its status, terms and conditions. The court’s ruling today annulled the 1967 judgment of a five-judge bench headed by Justice Aziz Basha. Today’s decision on minority status will also not be implemented.
Now new justices will decide minority status
If today’s decision is not implemented, it means that the 1967 decision has been annulled. Only a larger bench can set aside the decision of the 5-judge bench, so a larger 7-judge bench overturned the decision. It referred the matter to the full bench for a new decision.
The battle over AMU has been going on for so long. To do this, we reviewed cases from 1920, 1955, 1967, 1981, 2006 and 2016. The court overturned the 1967 ruling which said that since AMU was a central university, it could not be considered a minority institution. Likewise, in 2006, the Allahabad High Court ruled in this regard.
In January 2006, the High Court struck down a provision in the 1981 law that had given AMU minority status. And in 2016, the then NDA government changed the statement of the previous UPA government at the Centre. Earlier the government’s stance was different and when the government changed at the Centre, its statements also became different.
4 judges cannot overturn the decision of 5 judges!
Now, the seven-judge bench has clarified the new situation and asked the ordinary bench to rule on the matter again. However, the Supreme Court itself said in a 4-3 ruling that AMU should be granted minority status. Now, minority status will remain in place pending a decision by three judges.
Separately, the 7 judges on the court today quashed the 1967 judgment 4-3, and in this case, the nation’s highest court did not see how the 4-3 ruling quashed the 5-judge verdict. , but gave a new decision. In this case, it did not even implement its decision while canceling its previous decision. Now, a new bench of three judges will rule on the entire case.
There will be an investigation into who founded the university
Earlier, a majority bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud rejected Aziz Basha’s decision and said that no institution can lose its minority status simply because it was created under law. The courts should investigate who established the university and who were the “brains” behind it. If the investigative report points to a minority group, the agency can claim minority status under Section 30. For this purpose, the Constitutional Court referred the matter to the ordinary courts.
