INTRODUCTION:
One of the oldest and most prominent universities in India, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), has been involved in a legal dispute concerning its minority status for many years. Muslim reformer Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established AMU as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1877 with the intention of preserving Islamic values while addressing Muslim educational lag. The Muslim University Association and MAO College became a part of AMU when the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 took effect. Whether AMU qualifies for minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution in the present circumstances is the question.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, also known as Aligarh Muslim University, was founded in 1877 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. It was later incorporated by the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920.
In 1965, the Act underwent additional amendments, redistributing the Court’s powers among various bodies, including the executive, with the President of India nominating the governing body.
In S. Azeez Basha & Anr. v. Union of India, the dispute started in 1967. The petitioners contested AMU Act amendments, claiming that their rights under Article 30(1) namely, the right to establish and administer educational institutions had been violated. According to the Supreme Court, the efforts of the Muslim minority may have led to the 1920 Act’s passage. That being said, this does not mean that Aligarh University was founded by the Muslim minority in accordance with the 1920 Act.
In 1981, the Act underwent yet another amendment that defined ‘university’ as an establishment “established by the Muslims of India.” AMU instituted reservation policies in 2005, designating Muslim candidates for half of the postgraduate medical seats. Using the Supreme Court’s ruling in Azeez Basha as guide, the Allahabad High Court heard a challenge to this policy that same year. The argument was that since AMU is not a minority institution, the reservation is void.
The Allahabad High Court struck down the reservation policy, ignoring the 1981 amendment and ruling that AMU was not a minority institution based on Azeez Basha, rejecting the Union government’s and the university’s argument that the 1981 amendment rendered the Azeez Basha precedent invalid.
The reservation policy was put on hold in 2006 after an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. The National Democratic Alliance government denied AMU’s minority status in 2016 by withdrawing from the appeal.
A three-judge bench referred the Azeez Basha ruling to a seven-judge bench on February 12, 2019, for review. The case was finally taken up by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on October 12, 2023.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
All linguistic and religious minorities have the fundamental right to establish and administer any kind of educational institution they choose, according to Article 30(1) of Part III of the Constitution. Article 30(2) mandates that the State provide ‘equality of treatment’ to all educational institutions receiving aid, irrespective of whether they belong to minority or not.
PRESENT POSITION OF THE ISSUE:
In this case, the Supreme Court addresses two issues concerning the AMU’s minority status.
- What are the criteria for granting minority status to educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution?
- Can educational institutions established by parliamentary statute qualify for minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution?
Dr. Dhavan, the petitioners’ counsel, argued that a minority educational institution should not lose its minority status just because it is subject to statutory regulation and that the constitutional viewpoint, which supports the integration of liberal and religious education, should be taken into account.
He contended that the Azeez Basha ruling was in conflict with itself since the top court determined that a university had to be recognised by law for its degrees to be recognised. Nonetheless, the court found that AMU would lose its minority status if the statute were to recognise it.
Dr. Dhavan contended that this would nullify Article 30 and subordinate a fundamental right to a statute by requiring all minority institutions to apply for recognition under a statute and give up their minority status.
Dr. Dhavan emphasized that, for the purposes of Article 30, “established” includes terms like “found,” “recognise,” “confirm,” and “admit.” In response to a question concerning the distinction between “found” and “bring into existence,” he explained that the former refers to incorporation while the latter takes into account prior circumstances.
The respondent’s attorney is Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India. He contended that unlike “nationalist” institutions that opposed and denounced the British government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted that AMU chose to be a “loyalist” institution and ceded its minority status to the government. Azeez Basha, he said, accepted this ceding of rights.
The SG contended in the Azeez Basha case that the ruling only applied to the 1920 Act and did not create a law that was generally applicable, implying that a university loses its minority status upon incorporation. He made it clear that the 1920 Act was the main focus of the Azeez Basha case, and that AMU is not a minority university under that Act.
Underlining the significance of AMU as a national university, Tushar Mehta asked the Court to consider the matter from a social justice standpoint in order to ensure that students from the SC/ST/SEBC sections have equal access to it. Currently, between 70 to 80 percent of AMU students identify as Muslims.
CONCLUSION:
From January 10 to February 1, 2024, the seven-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, heard arguments for eight full days.
The Chief Justice of India has reserved the matter to make a decision at a later time after considering all of the arguments.
The question of whether AMU can assert its minority status and whether the Azeez Basha ruling ought to be reversed will be decided by the court. In addition to AMU, this decision has significant ramifications for minority universities throughout India.
To sum up, the AMU minority status case emphasizes how important it is to strike a careful balance between historical context, legal interpretations, and constitutional rights. AMU’s minority status is in jeopardy while we wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith
