The Supreme Court of India clarified on Tuesday that the political affiliations of the founders of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) during the British era should not impact the institution's minority status in the present day. The Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, asserted that the alignment of the founders with figures like Mahatma Gandhi or Khilafat during the colonial period should not influence the minority status of AMU today.

The clarification came in response to Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta's submission on behalf of the Central government, where he highlighted that historians described the founders of AMU as loyal to the British. The CJI emphasized that even if there were factions among the founders, whether loyalists supporting Gandhi or those aligned with Khilafat, it should not alter the institute's minority character.

The ongoing case, now in its fourth day of hearings, revolves around the minority status of AMU. Key legal questions include the criteria for granting minority status to an educational institution under Article 30 and whether a centrally-funded university established by parliamentary statute can be designated as a minority institution.

The Supreme Court had referred the matter to a seven-judge bench in February 2019, challenging the 1968 ruling that categorized AMU as a Central University. The Court, in 1981, reinstated the minority status through an amendment to the AMU Act, but in 2006, the Allahabad High Court declared the move unconstitutional. This led to AMU's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Notably, in 2016, the Central government withdrew its appeal in the matter, paving the way for the current proceedings. The final hearings began on January 9, with the apex court observing that an educational institute regulated by a statute is not barred from enjoying minority status.

During the recent hearing, the CJI responded to arguments by advocate MR Shamshad, stating that while a minority institute can establish a school, it cannot insist on recognition for conferring degrees without an enabling statute or legal regime. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani emphasized that Article 30 is an enabling provision, and the CJI raised the question of whether an institution created under a statute faces a bar in obtaining minority recognition.

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan urged the SG to stick to the pleadings rather than relying on books alleging the AMU founders' loyalty to the British. The SG emphasized that the decision in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India had recorded a finding that AMU had surrendered its claim to being a minority institute, a historical aspect challenged by Dhavan.