The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status case has taken center stage as senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid, along with Advocate Shadan Farasat, presented their arguments on the institution's historical background and the constitutional provisions at play.

Sibal asserted that the establishment and administration of minority institutions are absolute rights, citing Article 19(6) and referring to the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v Union of India (2002) case. He emphasized that the right of choice under Article 30 allows minority institutions to be administered by individuals outside the community without losing their minority character, citing the St. Stephens College v University of Delhi (1991) case as precedent.

Referring to a speech by former Education Minister M.C Chagla in 1965, Sibal argued that AMU was indeed established and administered by minorities. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, claiming selective reading of the parliamentary debates. The Chief Justice appeared momentarily convinced that AMU might not qualify as an Article 30 institution. Sibal, undeterred, insisted that opinions of ministers can be wrong, and only the law and the Constitution carry sanctity.

Expanding on arguments from Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, Sibal contended that the Muslim community played a pivotal role in the formation of AMU, citing Azeez Basha. He argued that 'establish' under Article 30 means established through community members, as opposed to the AMU Act of 1920, where it implies establishing a university from a college founded by community members.

Highlighting provisions of the 1920 Act, Sibal pointed out the transfer of assets and staff from Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO) to AMU, concluding that denying AMU its minority status would thwart the aspirations of minority children seeking education and employment in India.

Salman Khurshid urged the bench to adopt a "political, moral reading" of Article 30, invoking moral principles about political decency and justice. He emphasized AMU's historical importance within the Muslim community, quoting former Vice-Chancellor Dr. Zakir Husain's speech to underscore the institution's role in the upliftment of the Muslim community.

Advocate Shadan Farasat argued that AMU caters to the educated Muslim middle class and facilitates the education of Muslim women. He emphasized Article 30's recognition of the right to retain minority identity while participating fully in the national mainstream.

Sibal, addressing the relevance of Azeez Basha, suggested considering it "frozen in time." He asserted that the Constitution Bench should focus on the correctness of Azeez Basha, with implications for the 1981 Amendment and the Allahabad High Court judgment.

The case has been adjourned, with Advocate M.C. Shamshad scheduled to continue arguments on January 23, 2024.