Basis of '67 verdict on AMU minority tag holds, says SC

Parliament could not overcome the 1967 Supreme Court judgment against Aligarh Muslim University's (AMU) minority status by merely modifying a definition clause under the AMU Act to say that the university was established by the Muslims of India and not by the legislature, a sevenjudge Constitution bench observed on Wednesday.

According to a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, the 1981 amendments by Parliament to insert a new definition of "university" under the AMU Act could not take away the basis of the five-judge bench verdict in the Azeez Basha case in 1967 if it did not make fundamental changes in the act that was interpreted by the court to rule that AMU was neither established nor administered by a Muslim minority community. Based on this finding, the 1967 ruling declared that AMU was not a minority institution and cannot thus enjoy protection for minorities to administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

"When Parliament introduced the 1981 amendments, one change that they brought was to change the definition of 'university'. But did the substantive provisions of the amended statute make a fundamental change in the basis of the decision in Basha? Because, if it did not make any fundamental change in the basis of the statute that was interpreted in Basha, then, clearly, it is outside the power of Parliament to do so [override the effect of the 1967 judgment]," observed the bench.

The bench, which also included justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, added that it was open for Parliament in 1981 to amend the AMU Act even with retrospective effect to indicate that it was altering the relevant provisions to ensure AMU is administered by minority.

"That, Parliament could do but if Parliament does not do that or it has not done that, then it cannot merely by change in definition overcome the impact of a binding judgment... There is a distinction between amending a statute to take away the basis of a judgment and amendments that deal only with the reasoning part of it," the court remarked.