AMU’s minority status has been a contentious legal and political issue, first questioned in 1967 by a Supreme Court ruling in the S. Azeez Basha case. The judgment declared that AMU was not established by a minority community, citing that it was created by a parliamentary act in 1920, rather than by Muslims directly. Although the AMU Act was amended in 1981 to assert the university's establishment by Muslims, the amendment has not provided a clear legal resolution. AMU’s internal efforts to reserve seats for Muslims have met judicial setbacks, such as the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in 2005 against minority-based reservations, which contended that the institution was not entitled to such status due to the S. Azeez Basha precedent.
Subsequently, AMU, supported by the Union government, challenged the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court. However, the case encountered another twist in 2016, when the Union government, then under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), withdrew its support for AMU’s minority claim. The government argued that AMU, being a central university, should not confer preferential admission benefits based on religious grounds. This withdrawal left AMU to independently advocate for its minority status before the Supreme Court, with the institution contending that the 1981 amendment nullified the 1967 judgment’s impact by re-establishing its foundation as a minority institution.
The current judicial proceedings underscore the broader debate around the interpretation of Article 30, which safeguards minorities' right to establish and administer educational institutions. Supporters of AMU’s minority status argue that the university’s historical ties to the Muslim community and the 1981 amendments fulfill these constitutional protections. They contend that denying AMU its minority status overlooks its founding purpose, which was driven by efforts within India’s Muslim community to establish a center for higher education that would preserve and advance their cultural and religious identity. The university's proponents assert that the institution’s ability to cater to the educational needs of Muslims has implications for upholding the community's constitutional rights under Article 30.
Conversely, critics of AMU’s minority claim highlight the 1967 Supreme Court ruling, asserting that the university was not founded by a Muslim community or organization but was established through parliamentary legislation. From this perspective, critics argue that, as a central university funded by the government, AMU should not exercise preferences based on religious identity, and any such provision would be discriminatory and contrary to India’s secular framework.
The constitution of the new seven-judge bench is seen as a significant step, especially given the changing judicial landscape and evolving perspectives on minority rights. The bench’s re-evaluation could redefine how AMU and similar institutions are classified under Indian law. This outcome could have sweeping implications for minority educational institutions across the country, potentially influencing both public opinion and legislative approaches to educational autonomy for minority groups.