The Supreme Court of India, under the leadership of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, initiated a critical examination of the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on January 9. This landmark case is being scrutinized by a seven-judge bench, including Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and SC Sharma. The central issue revolves around a 2006 Allahabad High Court verdict which stated that AMU, although established by a minority community, was not administered as such, thereby disqualifying it as a minority institution.
Also read-Supreme Court Upholds Restrictions On Undertrial Prisoner Visits In Delhi (lawchakra.in)
Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, representing AMU, presented a compelling argument emphasizing the historical and educational significance of AMU in the Muslim community. He stressed the necessity of viewing the university’s status through a constitutional perspective, integrating liberal and religious education. Dhavan highlighted the inconsistency in the treatment of deemed universities under the UGC, which are recognized as minority institutions, despite the precedent in the Azeez Basha v. UOI case.
The bench, previously led by Chief Justice KN Wanchoo in 1967, had determined that AMU did not meet the criteria for a minority institution as it was neither founded nor managed by the Muslim minority. Challenging this ruling, Dhavan raised questions about its internal consistency, its congruence with subsequent statutory changes, and its alignment with the constitutional provisions of Article 30.
Dhavan delved deep into the concept of minority status under Article 30, underscoring the criticality of understanding secularism and minority rights in India’s diverse landscape. He elaborated on three key aspects: the origin of the institution, the nexus between the founders and the institution, and the numerical test for determining minority status. He emphasized that the right to establish and administer educational institutions is intrinsic to the recognition of minority status.
Also read-Supreme Court To Deliberate On AMU’s Minority Status (lawchakra.in)
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made a significant observation, stating that the minority status of an educational institution is not invalidated simply because it is regulated by a statute. He noted,
“Article 30 uses the expression – establish and administer, there is no absolute standard of administration that you must administer 100% would be an illusive standard. To make Article 30 effective we don’t have to postulate that the administration by the minority has to be an absolute administration, in that sense today in a regulated society, nothing is absolute… virtually every aspect of life is regulated in some way or the other.”
This observation underscores the Court’s understanding that in a regulated society, absolute administration by a minority is not a prerequisite for maintaining minority status.
The historical background of AMU was also thoroughly examined. Dhavan traced the university’s origins from the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College, founded in 1877 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, to its eventual transformation into AMU in 1920. He argued that AMU was essentially an extension of MAO, maintaining a continuity in its mission to serve the educational needs of the Muslim community.
The stance of the central government has seen a shift over the years. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had previously supported AMU’s claim to minority status. However, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government later withdrew this support in 2016, aligning with the Allahabad High Court’s ruling that AMU did not qualify as a minority institution under the UGC Act, 1956.
This case, referred to the Supreme Court by an order from then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi in 2019, transcends mere legal interpretation, touching upon the broader implications for minority educational institutions in India. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter will be pivotal in defining the rights and status of minority educational institutions under the Indian Constitution.
