In the ongoing legal battle concerning the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Supreme Court witnessed intense arguments from both sides on Wednesday. The case, which has been under scrutiny for several days, revolves around the validity of a 1968 verdict that stripped AMU of its minority status. 

The seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court engaged in further deliberations as the petitioners contesting against AMU's minority status presented their case. Senior Advocate NK Kaul, representing the original petitioners from the 1968 case, known as the Azeez Basha judgment, emphasized the historical context surrounding the establishment of AMU. Kaul argued that AMU was founded by the then central government, not solely by Muslims, highlighting that the institution's origins were rooted in historical findings.

A significant point of contention emerged regarding the 1981 amendment, which the petitioners argued did not address administrative concerns but rather altered the definition of a university. Kaul stressed that while the amendment modified certain aspects, it did not negate the historical basis recognized in the Azeez Basha judgment. This prompted Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to caution against undermining the powers of Parliament, emphasizing the need to preserve its authority in matters of constitutional significance.

Echoing these sentiments, Justice Khanna expressed concern over attempts to challenge established historical facts and the role of Parliament in legislative matters. Senior Advocate Kaul further countered arguments suggesting that AMU's minority status endangered the rights of Muslims, asserting that no rights or privileges were being revoked, and all citizens were equal under the law.

Chief Justice Chandrachud reiterated the importance of recognizing minority institutions as significant contributors to the nation, drawing parallels between AMU and Banaras Hindu University (BHU). He underscored the need to uphold the commitments made during AMU's establishment, ensuring its alignment with BHU's framework.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar initiated his arguments by questioning the foundation of the amendment Act. He contended that when a court makes factual findings on historical events, these findings cannot be overturned by a parliamentary amendment. He emphasized that while the legislature has the authority to nullify the basis of a judgment, simply doing so without justification is not permissible.

Senior Advocate Vinay Navare countered by citing legal precedents, stating that the minority status of an institution is specific to each state. He raised concerns about the implications for the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) if its minority status were revoked, particularly in regards to its campus in Jammu & Kashmir.

Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave asserted that the Azeez Basha judgment, which determined the character of AMU, remains valid law. She argued that the 1981 amendment attempted to unlawfully override this judgment.

In response, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing AMU, reiterated that protecting minority rights is fundamental to secularism.

Former Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court and Senior Advocate Yatinder Singh contributed to the discourse by highlighting demographic shifts and their potential electoral implications. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud urged to steer the discussion back to constitutional matters, cautioning against veering into political commentary.

As the arguments remained inconclusive, the Supreme Court scheduled further deliberations for the following day.