AMU minority status case: Supreme Court reserves the verdict

While the AMU Act, 1920 calls for the incorporation of a teaching and residential Muslim university at Aligarh, the 1951 amendment abolishes compulsory religious instructions for Muslim students in the university.

A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reserved its judgment on the thorny question that has arisen for Parliament in interpreting the complex laws governing the institution established as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by the prominent Muslim in 1875. The legislative prowess and strength of the judiciary have been tested time and again. Community members under the leadership of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Years later, in 1920, it was transformed into a university under the British Raj.

Justice Chandrachud and six other senior judges of the Supreme Court heard heated arguments for eight days before reserving the verdict.

Justice Chandrachud, in closing arguments, said, “One thing that is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position that existed before 1951. In other words, the 1981 amendment is a half-hearted Works.”

“I can understand that if the 1981 amendment had said… OK, we are going back to the original statute of 1920, giving full minority character to this (institution),” said the CJI, who had said that Led the bench which also included Justice Sanjiv Khanna. , Suryakant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Dutta, Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The BJP-led NDA government had last week refused to accept the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act and insisted that the court be guided by the 1967 judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench in the S Aziz Basha vs Union of India case. Must walk. It was then held that since AMU is a central university, it cannot be considered a minority institution.

During the arguments on Thursday, the bench said it had to see what the 1981 amendment did and whether it restored the institution to its pre-1951 status.

Several top lawyers appeared before the bench to argue on behalf of the rival parties.

Those in favor of granting minority status to the institute, including veteran lawyer Kapil Sibal, argued that the mere fact that only 37 out of the 180-member Governing Council are Muslims does not detract from its credentials as a Muslim minority institute.

Others, like Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that a university that receives huge funds from the Center and has been declared an institution of national importance cannot claim to belong to any particular religious sect. He also argued that once the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College transformed itself into a university following an amendment to the AMU Act in 1951 and began receiving funds from the central government, the institution abandoned its minority character. .

A lawyer opposed the granting of minority status to AMU and even claimed that this status has ended Of the Rs 5,000 crore from the central government between 2019 and 2023, Delhi University, a central university, got almost double that.

Some of them also argued that prominent people of the Muslim community, who had lobbied with the then British government for the establishment of the institution as a university for the purpose of promoting education among Muslims, were committing themselves to undivided India. He did not believe in religious minority and advocated it. Two nation theory.

Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal made a passionate counterattack, saying Article 30 of the Constitution, which deals with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, applies to AMU.

“Article 30 gives me the right to administer. It does not say that the administration should be in my hands or in Muslim hands or in Christian hands. That is not the meaning of Article 30. The right to administer of my choice, my Pass is an option…,” Sibal said, when he appeared for the AMU Old Boys Association, which advocated the minority status of the institute.

Sibal, replying to the bench, said, “For example, take any minority institution in this country, I do not think any minority institution in this country is administered by minorities. You apply the wrong test, You get the wrong answer.” In which surprise was expressed as to why the Governing Council of a minority university is dominated by people from other religious communities.

It is noteworthy that the Allahabad High Court had struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which the university was given minority status. Appeals were filed in the apex court, including by AMU, against the High Court decision.

The dispute regarding minority status of AMU has been stuck in legal maze for the last several decades.

The apex court had on February 12, 2019, referred the contentious issue to a seven-judge bench. A similar reference was also made in 1981.

The Congress-led UPA government at the Center filed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s 2006 judgment, which had struck down the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act. The university also filed a separate petition against it.

The BJP-led NDA government told the Supreme Court in 2016 that it would withdraw the appeal filed by the previous UPA government.

It cited the apex court’s 1967 judgment in the Basha case to claim that AMU is not a minority institution as it is a central university funded by the government.

Milestone alert!
Livemint tops charts as fastest growing news website in the world Click here to find out more.

Here’s a detailed 3-minute summary of everything Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said in her budget speech: Click to download!

Published: 01 February 2024, 10:55 PM IST