The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the long-standing debate over Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status. The Central government has told SC that any institution deemed to be of national importance is not eligible to claim minority status. The apex court said it would examine whether the “denominational character” of AMU got lost when it was designated as a university under the 1920 AMU Act. So what is the case all about? Let’s delve into the timeline of events that led to this situation.
Establishment in 1877, Gained University Status in 1920
AMU was founded by Syed Ahmed Khan, a judge, and educationist, as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1877. In 1920, the institution gained University status through an Act of the Indian Legislative Council. This transition elevated the MOA College to become Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
The AMU Act of 1920 was later amended in 1951 and 1965 which led to the current debate. The issue hasn’t been resolved in nearly 20 years.
Aligarh Muslim University Act First Amended in 1951
The Act was first amended in 1951. The Section 23 of the 1920 Act stated that governing body members of AMU must contain people from the Islamic faith. This provision was later removed in the 1951 AMU Act following suggestions from a 22-member select committee. This committee included some renowned names such as freedom fighter Deshbandhu Gupta, former minister Syama Prasad Mukherjee, BR Ambedkar, and former president Zakir Hussain, who was also vice-chancellor of AMU.
The committee said that the amendments it proposed were the same as the Banaras Hindu University Act 1915. It also stated that the terms ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ be removed from the title of both Acts.
What Happened in 1965?
In 1965, the Aligarh Muslim University Act was amended yet again. It gave the President of India the power to appoint the governing body members of the varsity, thus bringing it under the central government.
It was later challenged in 1967 by petitioners who argued that it violated fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion, the right to conserve culture and language, etc. The matter — S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case — was heard by a five-bench judge of the SC who said that although the AMU Act was “passed as a result of the efforts of the Muslim minority” it does not mean that the university was “established by the Muslim minority”. The top court also pointed out that since AMU was a central university, it could not be considered a minority institution as it was set up as per an Act in Parliament.
The matter did not end there.
Aligarh Muslim University Act Amended Yet Again in 1981
In 1981, the AMU Act was further amended to define the university as an “educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India”. A clause was inserted stating that the university exists “to promote especially the educational and cultural advancement of the Muslims of India”.
The university was also accorded the status of “institution of national importance” by the Union government of India through the AMU Act of 1981.
This led to nationwide protests by Muslims who demanded an amendment to the 1981 Act and sought AMU’s minority status. The Union government thereafter amended the AMU Act 1981 and affirmed the varsity’s minority status by adding Section 2(l) and Subsection 5(2)(c) of the AMU Act.
AMU reserves seats for Muslim students in 2005
In 2005, the AMU claimed itself to be a minority institution and reserved 50 per cent of its seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates based on the 1981 amendment.
This move was challenged in the Allahabad High Court which which ruled that AMU cannot be considered a minority institution and thus cannot reserve seats only for Muslim students. In 2006, the university challenged this judgment in the SC. Around eight petitions, including one from the Union government, contested the decision of Allahabad High Court before the Supreme Court that year. The case has been pending since.
In 2016, the Union government stated that establishing a minority institution contradicts a secular state’s principles. The centre withdrew its appeal. While in 2019, a three-judge bench presided over by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench.
Current scenario
The current court case delves into how AMU was founded, the amendedments made to the AMU Act 1920, how it became a university and came under the control of central government.
On January 9, 2024, the Centre told SC that AMU cannot be a minority institution given its “national character”. It cannot be a university of any particular religion as it has been declared an institution of national importance.
“As per the submission of the Union of India, the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is an institution of a national character. A survey of the documents surrounding the establishment of the Aligarh Muslim University and even the then existing legislative position enunciates that the AMU was always an institution having a national character,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said in a written document.
“Aligarh Muslim University is not and cannot be a University of any particular religion or religious denomination as any University which is declared by the Constitution of India to be of national importance should, by definition, cannot be a minority institution,” Mehta added.
Mehta also said that if AMU is to be declared a minority institution then it would be “drastic” as it has an enormous amount of students studying in various courses. “It is submitted that a large national institute like Aligarh Muslim University ought to maintain its secular origins and serve the larger interest of the nation first,” he said.
What Supreme Court said?
A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud began hearing the matter on Tuesday. The bench said that it would examine whether the “denominational character” of the institution got lost when it was designated as a university under the 1920 AMU Act. The apex court also observed the mere fact that it was accorded the status of a university does not amount to surrender of its minority status.
“What are the indicia (signs of the varsity having lost its minority status)? Later on we will again look at it to indicate that when it was conferred with the university status, that it surrendered its minority status. The mere fact that it was given university status does not amount to a surrender of the minority status,” observed the bench, which comprised of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.
“We have to independently see whether by the 1920 Act the denominational character of AMU was lost,” the CJI said during the fourth day of arguments. The bench said it was a well settled principle that an institution does not have to give up its minority status when it seeks aid. “Because today there is a recognition that without aid no institution, minority or non-minority, can exist. Merely by seeking aid or being granted aid, you don’t lose your right to claim your minority status. That is now very well settled,” the court said.
During the day-long hearing, Justice Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Centre, about the status of AMU and its history. Mehta said that expenditure incurred by the university from 1920 to 1950 was borne by the government and currently it stands at Rs 1,500 crore annually.
The bench also heard advocate M R Shamshad, who spoke in favour of AMU’s minority status. The arguments, however, remained inconclusive and the case is ongoing.
AMU is ranked ninth among universities and autonomous institutions in the National Institutional Ranking Framework 2023. The university currently reserves 50 per cent of seats in all courses for students who have graduated from AMU schools, but it does not have any reservation on religious grounds.
–with PTI inputs
Comments
0 comment