AMU Minority Status | Day 8(Final Day)-Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Aligarh Muslim University's Minority Status

“The (1981) amendment brought a Muslim voice into AMU but it stopped short of going back to the pre-1951 Act, or to the 1920 one. That was to say a half-hearted job, even by parliament, because it had the power to do so,” -CJI DY Chandrachud.

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

AMU Minority Status | Day 8-Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Aligarh Muslim University's Minority Status

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict after hearing the final rejoinders from the counsel defending the institution’s status. This case has been a focal point in discussions about minority rights and educational institutions in India.

A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma concluded hearing the rejoinder submissions in the matter today(01/02/2024) following which it reserved its verdict.

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

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolve around defining the criteria for awarding minority status to an educational institution as outlined in Article 30 of the Constitution. Additionally, the case questions whether a centrally-funded university, established through parliamentary statute, can be categorized as a minority institution.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan highlighted the representation of Muslims in the management of AMU, including its academic council. However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also representing the petitioners, argued that the presence of Muslims in AMU’s executive and academic bodies should not be the sole criterion for determining the university’s minority status. Sibal emphasized,

“This whole numerical argument is irrelevant. What kind of tests are we applying, never before in history. That is why they (Centre) have no judgments (in their favour).”

Sibal further argued against the notion that an institution must be run by a minority community to be deemed a minority one. He pointed out the practical challenges in this approach, stating,

“There may not always be enough educated minority community members at that level to fill all such posts.” He questioned the validity of such a test, saying, “Should we apply a test that will destroy the entire minority educational structure in this country? That is why I said I have a right, not a duty to administer. And I can cede and challenge when I want to. No court has held otherwise. Numerical strength can never be an issue … Where do you get the proposition that an institute for a minority has to only be administered by the minority? Please do not apply a test that is Constitutionally suspect.”

Sibal also asserted that since 1950, AMU has functioned as both a de jure (by law) and de facto (in fact) minority institute, serving the needs of the minority community. He reflected on the university’s history, stating,

“Sir Syed and everybody else did not think of the establishment (of AMU) in a statutory sense. They were very clear while founding the institution that government supervision may be there but no government control. This was clear since the very beginning. Just saying that the founders were loyal to the Britishers does not dilute this aspect; some wanted social change. If at all, this argument is just communal.”

In his concluding remarks, Sibal highlighted the broader implications of challenging AMU’s minority status, stating,

“One small citadel of learning in a country of 1.4 billion people – what are you trying to do? In a secular country wedded to plurality and the Constitution, here we are arguing that we should take away the minority status. Let me just say that if this happens then it will be a sad day for the country, that is all.”

Meanwhile, the CJI observed that the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act (which sought to restore its minority status after the Azeez Basha judgment) did not restore the position prevailing before the 1951 amendment Act (upheld in the Azeez Basha case).

“The (1981) amendment brought a Muslim voice into AMU but it stopped short of going back to the pre-1951 Act, or to the 1920 one. That was to say a half-hearted job, even by parliament, because it had the power to do so,” CJI observed.

Advocate Shadan Farasat, while referring to the 1981 amendment, stated that it is not the responsibility of AMU or private parties to defend the parliament.

“Government or executive does not have the choice to support the amendment or not. It is in the exclusive domain of the judiciary. We are only supporting the amendment because parliament has spoken in our favour,” Farasat said.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is eagerly awaited, as it will have significant implications for minority educational institutions in India. The verdict will not only determine the future of AMU but also set a precedent for how minority status is interpreted and applied in the context of educational institutions, reflecting on the country’s commitment to secularism and minority rights.

Advocate MR Shamshad emphasized that the outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications for various minority rights in the country. He also expressed concern that the opposing arguments seemed to diminish the significance of Article 30, reducing it to a mere “decorative” provision.