AMU verdict: Minority rejects Aligarh Muslim University minority status
Even as four of seven-judge Constitution Bench members paved the way for declaring the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), a minority institution, by overruling the 1967 verdict in S Azeez Basha case, the minority declared that AMU was not a minority institution.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/sc-to-pronounce-verdict-on-amus-minority-status-today/
The majority verdict delivered by CJI DY Chandrachud (for himself, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra) said AMU cannot be declared to be a non-minority institution simply because it was created by a central law.
However, the minority verdicts delivered by Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma ruled that a two-judge bench in 2019 could not have directly referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.
While Justice Datta declared that AMU was not a minority institution under Article 30, Justice Sharma said the minorities didn’t need ‘safe haven’ to pursue education.
Justice Datta highlighted the lack of a consultative decision-making process.
“A common venue for a purposeful and effective dialogue where members of the bench could freely express their points of view, an attempt to share thoughts and to exchange opinions, a ‘give’ and ‘take’ of ideas, in true democratic spirit to build up a consensus — all these seem to have taken a backseat, having regard to the immense pressure of work which we, the HCJI and other judges on the bench, have undertaken during the time ever since the judgment was reserved,” Justice Datta wrote.
“To assume that the minorities of the country require some ‘safe haven’ for attaining education and knowledge is wholly incorrect,” Justice Sharma said, adding the purpose of Article 30 was not to create “minority only” ghettos but provide positive rights to the minorities to establish educational institutions of their choice and kind.
He sought to underline that the minorities in India had not only joined the mainstream but were also an important facet of it. “The institutions of national character of the country always serve the interests of the minorities and are diverse centres of learning,” Justice Sharma said.
Justice Sharma said the “establishment” of an institution by the minority was necessary for it to claim the right of administration under Article 30 of the Constitution which gave minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions and that the words “establish” and “administer” were used conjunctively in Article 30.
“The minority community may conceptualise the idea of an institution and may advocate for the same, however, if during an exchange or negotiation, the actual institution which was established had primacy of governmental efforts and control, then such institution cannot be held to be predominantly established by the efforts and actions of the minority community,” Justice Sharma said.
Timeline of AMU Minority Status Controversy
1857: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan establishes Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College.
1920: AMU Act enacted dissolving Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College and incorporating it as a central university.
1951: Parliament passes AMU (Amendment) Act; compulsory instruction in Muslim theology done away with. Membership of the AMU Court opened to non-Muslims.
1966: AMU Act further amended. Amendment challenged before SC by S Azeez Basha.
1967: SC dismisses the challenge by holding that AMU was not a minority institution as it was established by an Act of Parliament and it had not been set up by Muslims.
1972: AMU Act amended again; academic and executive councils made more democratic, number of Visitor’s nominees reduced.
1981: Yet another amendment to AMU Act. AMU allowed “to promote; especially the educational and cultural advancement of Muslims in India". It also allowed AMU to get back its minority tag by attempting to remove the basis of the 1967 SC verdict.
2004: AMU reserves 50% seats in PG medical courses for Muslims.
2005-06: Allahabad HC declares reservation for Muslims was unconstitutional on the basis of SC decision in Azeez Basha case.
2006: UPA government and AMU file separate appeals against Allahabad HC verdict. They contended the 1981 amendment gave AMU aminority status and allowed it to give reservation to Muslims.
2016: NDA decides to withdraw appeal against Allahabad HC verdict. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi tells SC AMU is not a minority institution.
Feb 12, 2019: SC refers the issue to a seven-judge Constitution Bench
Feb 1, 2024: A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud reserves verdict
Nov 8, 2024: SC paves way for AMU to be declared minority institution. By a 4:3 majority, overrules its 1967 five-judge Constitution Bench verdict in S Azeez Basha case that had said AMU wasn’t a minority institution
