38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Minority Institutions can be set up by Statute, administered independently; SC overrules 1967 Azeez Basha Verdict

By Jhanak Sharma      08 November, 2024 01:21 PM      0 Comments
Minority Institutions can be set up by Statute administered independently SC overrules 1967 Azeez Basha Verdict

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday by a majority view overruled the 1967 judgement in Azeez Basha case which constituted the basis for depriving Aligarh Muslim University of its minority character.

Supreme Court Rules Minority Status Unaffected by Statute-Based Establishment

A seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud 
held that a minority institution can be established by the minority and may not necessarily be administered by the minority members.

The CJI who authored the majority view, also held the minority character of the institute is not lost due to a statute by which it is created.

The bench said an institution cannot be denied minority status just because it has been established by a parliamentary legislation. Various other factors surrounding such establishment and other aspects ought to be taken into account, the court added.

The court said it is also not necessary to prove that the administration of a minority institution lies with such minority group. The test is whether the institution exudes minority character and operates in the interest of minority.

It also said minority institutions may wish to emphasise secular education and for that minority members are not needed in administration.

The majority judgment was pronounced by the CJI on behalf of himself and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Justices Surya Kant, and Dipankar Datta gave their own dissenting judgments. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma wrote his own opinion in the matter.

Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status Review Sent to Lower Bench for Final Decision

After the pronouncement of judgment, the court referred the matter to a three judge bench to decide the issue arising out of 2006 Allahabad High Court's judgement which denuded the Aligarh Muslim University of its minority character.

The bench said the issue of AMU minority status is now left to be decided by a regular bench for the factual determination whether it was 'established' by a minority.

In 1967, a five-judge constitution bench in S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case held that since AMU was a central university, it cannot be considered a minority institution.

In 1981, its minority status was restored when Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981. In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which the university was accorded the minority status.

In his judgment, Justice Surya Kant said the five-judge bench in Aziz Basha case had correctly decided that AMU was not a minority institution, which has attained finality, and that there is no need to reopen the inquiry into the character of AMU.

He severely criticised the manner in which the case was referred by a three-judge bench to present seven-judge bench and termed it as a judicial impropriety on the part of the smaller bench and also on part of the then CJI in accepting the request.

Justice Dipankar Datta also differed with CJI's majority opinion which validated AMU reference by a two-judge bench directly to a seven-judge bench after doubting the five-judge bench verdict in Aziz Basha.

He asked if a two-judge bench tomorrow can doubt 'basic structure doctrine' propounded in Kesavananda Bharati case and refer it to 15-judge bench directly. He said the majority opinion will set a very dangerous opinion. He ruled that AMU is not a minority institution.

Justice Sharma said his opinion is neither concurring nor dissenting with the majority opinion authored by CJI Chandrachud. However, he agreed with dissents that the two-judge bench could not have referred the case directly to a seven-judge bench.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS

sc-questions-precedent-on-contractual-bars-to-arbitration-claims-refers-bharat-drilling-to-larger-bench
Trending Judiciary
SC Questions Precedent on Contractual Bars to Arbitration Claims, Refers ‘Bharat Drilling’ to Larger Bench [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court refers the 2009 Bharat Drilling ruling to a larger bench, questioning its use in interpreting contractual bars on arbitration claims.

08 December, 2025 04:45 PM
j-and-k-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-injunction-plea-in-agrarian-reforms-dispute
Trending Judiciary
J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of Injunction Plea in Agrarian Reforms Dispute [Read Order]

J&K High Court upholds dismissal of injunction plea, ruling that agrarian disputes fall under Agrarian Reforms Act authorities, not civil courts.

08 December, 2025 05:21 PM

TOP STORIES

hostile-india-china-ties-no-extradition-treaty-allahabad-hc-denies-bail-to-chinese-national-in-visa-forgery-case
Trending Judiciary
Hostile India–China Ties, No Extradition Treaty: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Chinese National in Visa Forgery Case [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court denies bail to a Chinese national accused of visa tampering and forging Indian IDs, citing hostile India–China ties and no extradition treaty.

03 December, 2025 12:53 AM
attachment-before-judgment-cannot-cover-property-sold-prior-to-suit-filing-sc
Trending Judiciary
Attachment Before Judgment Cannot Cover Property Sold Prior to Suit Filing: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court holds that property transferred before a suit cannot be attached under Order 38 Rule 5; fraud allegations must be pursued separately under Section 53 TP Act.

03 December, 2025 01:30 AM
sc-holds-no-review-or-appeal-maintainable-against-order-appointing-arbitrator
Trending Judiciary
SC Holds No Review Or Appeal Maintainable Against Order Appointing Arbitrator [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that no review, recall or appeal lies against a Section 11 arbitrator appointment order, reaffirming minimal judicial interference in arbitration.

03 December, 2025 01:40 AM
partner-cannot-invoke-arbitration-clause-without-express-authorisation-of-other-partners-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Partner Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause Without Express Authorisation of Other Partners: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court rules that a partner cannot invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator without express authorisation from co-partners.

03 December, 2025 05:19 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email