As Chief Justice DY Chandrachud concludes his tenure, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge Constitution bench prepares to deliver a landmark ruling on Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status. This decision could redefine the institution’s future and influence broader interpretations of minority rights in India. Headed by CJI Chandrachud, the bench includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Their judgment, reserved since February 1, follows a rigorous examination of AMU’s legal status under Article 30, which grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and manage their educational institutions.

Suppose the court rules that AMU lacks minority status. In that case, the university must implement state reservation policies for students and faculty, aligning its admissions and hiring practices with other public institutions. This could mean substantial changes in AMU’s demographic composition, impacting the nearly century-old institution’s mission and character. However, if AMU is allowed to retain minority status, it could continue to reserve up to 50% of its seats for Muslim students, maintaining its distinct identity within the Indian higher education landscape.

The case’s complex history dates back to the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, where the Court concluded that AMU did not qualify as a minority institution because it was not “established and administered” by the Muslim community, as required under Article 30. This led to a protracted debate and legislative responses, including the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which asserted that AMU was “established by the Muslims of India.” In 2005, AMU introduced a 50% reservation for Muslim students in its postgraduate medical programs, a policy later struck down by the Allahabad High Court, which ruled AMU was not a minority institution.

The case was referred to the seven-judge bench in 2019 to reconsider the S. Azeez Basha decision emphasizing the need to reevaluate AMU’s constitutional status in light of evolving minority rights jurisprudence. The central government, which withdrew its support for AMU’s minority status in 2016, now argues that AMU was secularized under the 1920 Act enacted during British rule and has not been under exclusive Muslim management, a critical requirement under Article 30.

The verdict carries broader implications for minority rights in India. It will shape AMU’s future and the legal precedent for other minority institutions seeking to preserve distinct identities within India’s education system. With Chief Justice Chandrachud’s tenure ending, this judgment reflects his judicial philosophy and is a potential turning point in how the Constitution protects minority educational rights. For his successor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the decision will set a significant precedent, underlining the balance between secularism and the constitutional rights of minority communities in India.