AMU Minority Status | Day 7-Supreme Court Highlights Historical Fact: Aligarh Muslim University Founded For Muslim Community

On the 7th day of the hearing of the case related to the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Supreme Court of India noted today that it’s undeniable the University was established for Muslims. And that its founding was akin to that of Banaras Hindu University, setting a precedent.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

AMU Minority Status | Day 7-Supreme Court Highlights Historical Fact: Aligarh Muslim University Founded for Muslim Community

NEW DELHI: Today(31/01/2024), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was originally established for Muslims, underscoring the significance of this fact while addressing a case related to whether the university can assert minority status as per Article 30 of the Constitution [AMU v Naresh Agarwal and ors].

A Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, also clarified that even an institution with minority status can be designated as an institute of national importance by the parliament.

During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the respondents, argued that it was unfounded to suggest that the minority rights of Muslims were under threat.

The Core Legal Debate: Minority Character vs. National Importance

At the heart of this debate is a critical question posed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud:

“Now once an institution is declared of National Importance, then calling it a denominational institution would somehow seem to detract from that status of an institution of National Importance. Why do you say that there is no antagonism between an institution being of National Importance and yet having a minority character?”

This question was directed to Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, representing AMU.

In response, Dr. Dhavan clarified that the entries in the Seventh Schedule, which delineate the competencies of Union and State Governments over various subjects, do not constrain fundamental rights. He asserted that the stature of a Fundamental Right, like the one under Article 30, cannot be subdued by the Constitution’s Schedules. He argued for the coexistence of national importance with minority status, stating that Article 30 cannot be negated by List I, which addresses the issue of law-making competence.

Historical and Legal Context of AMU’s Status

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and SC Sharma, is revisiting the 2006 Allahabad High Court verdict that denied AMU its minority status. This reexamination follows a 2019 decision by a three-judge Supreme Court bench to escalate the matter to a larger bench. The case pivots on whether a university established by statute can claim minority status, scrutinizing the 1967 Supreme Court judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union Of India and the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act.

The Impact of the 42nd Amendment Act

CJI Chandrachud delved into the legislative history, noting that before the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, education, including universities, was governed by the State List and the Concurrent List but was subject to the Union List’s Entry 63. This entry designated AMU and BHU as institutions of national importance, thus placing them under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. He emphasized,

“In respect to these two institutions – AMU and BHU, the legislative competence is exclusively rested with the Parliament.”

Pre-Independence Recognition of Minority Status

Dr. Dhavan also highlighted the pre-Independence recognition of minorities, referencing various Electoral Acts like the Act of 1909 (Minto-Morely Reforms), the 1919 Government of India Act, and the Government of India Act 1935. These acts acknowledged minorities, including Muslims and Sikhs, within their electoral frameworks, thereby establishing the concept of minority status before the Constitution.

Political Overtones in the Case

The hearing took a political turn with arguments from Senior Advocate Yatinder Singh, who discussed the influence of the Muslim minority on elections. CJI Chandrachud, however, steered the discussion back to constitutional law, emphasizing the need to focus on the legal aspects rather than political personalities.

The Establishment of AMU and Parliamentary Powers

Senior Counsel Kaul argued that the 1981 amendment act did not alter the basis of the Azeez Basha verdict, maintaining that the British government, not Muslims, established AMU. CJI Chandrachud responded by underscoring that the 1920 Act did not diminish the fact that Muslims established AMU and cautioned against arguments that might weaken Parliament’s powers.

Hearing Today

Senior Counsel Kaul at the outset argued that the 1981 amendment act does not remove the basis of the Azeez Basha verdict. He further submitted that the AMU was set up by the government and not by Muslims.

“Establishment of AMU by then British government is a fact based on historical finding. MAO [Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental] college was dissolved and AMU was founded by the then Central government (British government) and not the Muslims. 1981 Act does not deal with administration at all, it is about establishment being removed… definition of university, etc.”

The CJI replied that the 1920 Act gave AMU the form of a statutory university but this did not dilute the fact that it was established by Muslims.

“Parliament in 1981 had this in sight. Mr. Kaul, while arguing for the government and in eagerness to argue for uphold the striking down the 1981 Amendment, see that you do not cripple the powers of parliament. This will have effect on powers of the constitutional body. Please note that this will be used in the future as well. Please see that the powers of parliament are not diluted by such a broad proposition (or that arguments are made) to exclude powers of the Parliament to go into the historical perspective,” the CJI added.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar then began arguments and questioned the basis of the amendment Act.

“When a judgment finds factual finding on historical facts, then that cannot be superseded by a Parliamentary amendment. Yes, legislature can remove basis of a judgment but merely doing this is not permissible at all.”

Senior Advocate Vinay Navare argued that according to precedents, the minority status of an institute is State-specific.

“So if this is held, that AMU does not have a minority status, then what happens to its campus in Jammu & Kashmir?” he added.

Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave argued that the Azeez Basha judgment is good law and determined the character of only AMU.

“1981 amendment tried to brazenly overrule the Basha judgment which it could not have done,” Dave maintained.

In rejoinder submissions, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan (for AMU) argued that minority protection lay at the heart of secularism.

“Concept of minority goes to the root of minority protection under the Indian Constitution, and is one of the key features of secularism. Minority protection goes to the heart in what secularism is all about; it is about bringing about equality keeping in mind autonomy of minority institutions. There is a constitutional and a statutory premium to the protection of minority status,” he emphasised.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ongoing examination of the AMU case is a critical juncture in understanding the interplay between minority rights and national importance in India’s educational landscape. The outcome of this case is poised to have far-reaching implications on the legal and educational framework of the country, potentially reshaping the discourse on minority institutions and their role in a diverse society.