The Centre has told the Supreme Court that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot be considered a minority institution since it has a national character. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on 10th January delivered the Centre’s written comments before the seven-judge Constitution Bench, which began hearing the batch of petitions to review the legitimacy of a five-judge bench’s 1968 decision that removed Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status.
“AMU is not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination as any university which has been declared an institution of national importance cannot be a minority institution,” says the written submission by Mehta.
On Tuesday (9th January), a seven-judge Supreme Court bench began hearing arguments on the minority identity of Aligarh Muslim University. This is a nearly 57-year-old case that has been adjudicated on several occasions by various courts.
“AMU has always been an institution of national importance, even in the pre-independence era. 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,” the submission reads.
As any university declared by the Indian Constitution to be of national importance should, by definition, not be a minority institution, Mehta stated in his written submission. He pressed that Aligarh Muslim University is not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination.
The submissions stated that, despite being an institution of national importance alongside other institutions of national importance, Aligarh Muslim University would have a separate admissions procedure. “National institutes like Aligarh Muslim University ought to maintain their secular origins and serve the larger interest of the nation first,” the submission added.
Minority Character of an Educational Institue
Article 30(1) of the Constitution permits all religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions. This clause reaffirms the Union government’s commitment to promoting the growth and development of minority groups by ensuring that aid will not be discriminated against based on their status as ‘minority’ institutions.
AMU traces its beginnings back to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s establishment of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MOA) College in 1875 to assist Muslims in overcoming educational backwardness and preparing for government service. MOA not only provided Western education but also highlighted Islamic ideology. Sir Syed also promoted women’s education.
As per the reports, in 1920, the institution was granted university status, and all assets from MOA College were transferred to it. The long title of the AMU Act was then changed to “An Act to incorporate a teaching and residential Muslim University at Aligarh.”
Legal dispute over the Minority character of AMU
The legal controversy concerning AMU’s minority status began in 1967, when the Supreme Court (in S. Azeez Basha and others v. Union of India), led by then Chief Justice of India KN Wanchoo, was evaluating revisions made to the AMU Act of 1920 in 1951 and 1965. These changes influenced how the university was administered.
Furthermore, a rule stating that only Muslims could be members of the University Court was eliminated, allowing non-Muslims to participate. The modifications also lowered the jurisdiction of the University Court while increasing the powers of AMU’s Executive Council.
These changes to the AMU’s organization were challenged in the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued essentially that Muslims founded AMU and hence had the authority to administer it. On October 20, 1967, when examining a challenge to these revisions, the Supreme Court ruled that AMU was not created nor administered by the Muslim minority.
The Supreme Court ruled that Muslims may have established a university in 1920, but this would not have assured that the degrees earned there would be legally accepted by the Indian government.
As a result, the court underlined that AMU was formed through a central Act to ensure that the government recognized its degrees. “So while the Act may have been passed as a result of the efforts of the Muslim minority, it does not imply that the University, under the 1920 Act, was established by the Muslim minority,” the SC ruled.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded that the university was not entirely operated by Muslims in accordance with the 1920 Act. Instead, its administration was delegated to the Lord Rector and other statutory organizations. The University Court, which had only Muslim members, was also elected by a non-Muslim electorate, the Supreme Court stated.
The Supreme Court verdict sparked national Muslim protests. In 1981, political authorities introduced an amendment to the AMU Act that expressly confirmed the minority status. The modification added Sections 2(l) and 5(2)(c), stating that the university was “an educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India” and “subsequently incorporated” as the AMU.
In 2005, the AMU further introduced a policy that reserved 50% of postgraduate medical seats for Muslim candidates. This was challenged in the Allahabad High Court, which, the same year, reversed the reservation and declared the 1981 Act invalid. The court determined that the AMU could not maintain an exclusive reservation because, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the S. Azeez Basha case, it was not classified as a minority institution. In 2006, a series of eight petitions, including one from the Union government, challenged the High Court’s verdict in the Supreme Court.
In 2016, the NDA government told the Supreme Court that it was dropping its case, stating that “as the executive government at the Centre, we can’t be seen as setting up a minority institution in a secular state.”
On February 12, 2019, a three-judge bench led by the then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the case to a seven-judge bench. On Tuesday, the Bench, which included Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, began hearing the case.
