The Supreme Court of India has concluded its exhaustive eight-day hearings on the contentious issue surrounding the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). This landmark case has garnered significant attention as it delves into the heart of constitutional principles regarding minority rights and educational autonomy.

A seven-judge constitution bench presided over the hearings, ultimately reserving its judgment on the matter. At the core of the debate lies the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

The genesis of the legal battle traces back to a 1968 verdict by a five-judge bench that stripped AMU of its minority status. The recent hearings saw a flurry of arguments from both sides, with Senior Advocates Rajiv Dhavan and Kapil Sibal spearheading the defense on behalf of AMU.

Dhavan and Sibal meticulously illustrated the historical and functional aspects of AMU, emphasizing its roots in the Muslim community's educational endeavors. They highlighted the significant Muslim representation in the university's administration and decision-making processes, underscoring the institution's continued commitment to the welfare of its community.

Of particular note were Dhavan's insights into the composition of AMU's Academic Council, where Muslims hold substantial representation as per established norms and practices. Meanwhile, Sibal vehemently contended that AMU had never relinquished its minority rights, rebutting claims made by the Centre. He argued passionately against any attempt to undermine the institution's secular structure, emphasizing its alignment with constitutional values.

Sibal's poignant remarks encapsulated the broader significance of the case, warning against the potential repercussions of stripping AMU of its minority status. In a country celebrated for its secular ethos and diversity, such a move would not only undermine the institution's autonomy but also signal a departure from constitutional principles.

The Chief Justice of India remarked that the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, aimed at reinstating its minority status after the Azeez Basha judgment, fell short of fully reverting to the pre-1951 Act or the 1920 one, despite introducing a Muslim representation. This was viewed as a somewhat half-hearted effort by Parliament.

Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that defending the amendment is not the responsibility of AMU or private parties, asserting that the judiciary holds exclusive authority over such matters. Advocate MR Shamshad emphasized the broader implications of the case on minority rights, criticizing opposing arguments for trivializing Article 30 as merely a decorative provision.

Case: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal and ors.