The deliberations in the Indian Supreme Court took an unexpected turn when the government’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, announced his disagreement with a 1981 parliamentary amendment that granted minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). During a series of hearings centered around the reassessment of a historic 1968 ruling that initially stripped AMU of this status, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who was part of the seven-judge bench, was taken aback by Mehta’s stance, prompting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to highlight the importance and authority of Parliament in the amendment process.
The bench grappled with the foundational elements of AMU’s status as a minority institution, investigating historical correspondences and legislative actions to understand its denominational character. Amidst the legal scrutiny, issues of alignment with the government and entitlement to aid without forfeiting minority stature were discussed, considering the implications of both historical and contemporary contexts. The debate touched upon the very nature of Article 30 of the Constitution, emphasizing it as an obligation of the state rather than a discretionary enabler, thus underscoring the commitment to protecting minority institutions.
Arguments in the case continue as the bench deliberates the intersecting threads of law, history, and policy, seeking to determine the rightful claim of AMU to its minority status, a decision with far-reaching consequences for the university and the nation’s framework of minority educational institutions.