Dispute Over Minority Status of AMU | 17 Jan 2024

Source: TH

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) has observed on the Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status that an educational institution does not lose its minority status merely on the ground that its administration is regulated by a statute.

• The Centre before the SC had said minority educational institutions are not required to implement the reservation policy under Section 3 of the Central Educational Institute (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in 2012).

When did the University’s Minority Character Come Under Dispute?

• History of AMU:
  • The roots of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) can indeed be traced back to the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MOA) College, established by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875.
  • The primary aim was to address the educational backwardness among Muslims in India during that period.
  • In 1920, the institution gained University status through an Act of the Indian Legislative Council. This transition elevated the MOA College to become Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
  • The university inherited all the assets and functions of the MOA College. The official title of the AMU Act was "An Act to incorporate a teaching and residential Muslim University at Aligarh.”
• Origin of Dispute:
  • Legal Challenges to the AMU Act 1920: The dispute over the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) emerged prominently in 1967, stemming from legal challenges to amendments made in 1951 and 1965 to the AMU Act of 1920.
    • Key changes included replacing the position of the 'Lord Rector' with a 'Visitor,' who would be the President of India.
  • Allowed Non-Muslims to be Part of University Court: Provisions restricting membership in the University Court solely to Muslims were removed, allowing non-Muslims to participate.
    • Furthermore, these amendments reduced the authority of the University Court while enhancing the powers of the Executive Council, essentially making the Court a body appointed by the 'Visitor.'
    • The legal challenge in the Supreme Court was primarily based on the assertion that Muslims had established AMU and thus had the right to manage it.
  • Supreme Court’s Ruling: In 1967 the SC held that while Muslims might have initiated the establishment of a university in 1920, this wouldn't have guaranteed official recognition of its degrees by the Indian government.
    • A five-judge constitution bench of the top court in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case, 1967 held that since AMU was a central university, it could not be considered a minority institution.
    • The crucial point in the court's ruling was that AMU was established through a central Act to ensure government recognition of its degrees, indicating that the Act itself wasn't solely the product of the Muslim minority's efforts.
    • The court emphasised that while the Act might have been a result of the Muslim minority's endeavours, it didn't imply that the university, under the 1920 Act, was established by the Muslim minority.
  • Minority Character: This legal challenge and subsequent SC’s ruling in 1967 brought into question the perception of AMU's minority character, arguing that its establishment and administration weren't solely rooted in the efforts of the Muslim minority as initially argued.
    • The AMU had been accorded the status of "institution of national importance" by the Union government of India through the AMU Act of 1981.

Why Does the Dispute Persist?

• The SC’s ruling led to nationwide protests from Muslims, prompting a 1981 amendment affirming AMU’s minority status.
  • In response, the Union government introduced an amendment to the AMU Act in 1981 and explicitly affirmed its minority status by adding Section 2(l) and Subsection 5(2)(c) of the AMU Act.
• In 2005, AMU reserved 50% of postgraduate medical course seats for Muslim candidates. However, the Allahabad High Court overturned this reservation, nullifying the 1981 Act.
  • The court reasoned that as per the SC’s S. Azeez Basha vs Union of India, case AMU didn't qualify as a minority institution.
• In 2006, eight petitions, including one from the Union government, contested the decision of Allahabad High Court before the Supreme Court.
  • In 2016, the Union government withdrew its appeal, stating that establishing a minority institution contradicted a secular state's principles.
• In 2019, a three-judge Bench presided by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench.

What are the Observations of the Supreme Court in the Ongoing AMU Case?

• Doesn't Lose Minority Status if Regulated by Statute:
  • The court highlighted that the regulation by statute doesn't diminish an institution's minority status, emphasising that Article 30 of the Constitution doesn't mandate exclusive administration by the minority community.
• Can have Secular Administration:
  • A minority institution need not exclusively offer religious courses and can have a secular administration, admitting students from diverse communities.
    • One of the questions before the Constitution Bench is whether an institution could be regarded as a minority educational institution for the reason that it was “established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority.
• Majority community in Administration does not affect the Minority Status:
  • The presence of office-bearers from a majority community in some administrative wings of educational institutions does not necessarily dilute their minority character.

What are Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Regarding Minority Communities?

• Article 29:
  • It provides that any section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same.
  • It grants protection to both religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities.
    • However, the SC held that the scope of this article is not necessarily restricted to minorities only, as the use of the word ‘section of citizens’ in the Article includes minorities as well as the majority.
• Article 30 (1) of the Constitution empowers all religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
  • The SC stated that Article 30 of the Constitution is not to “ghettoise the minority”.
  • This provision reinforces the Union government’s commitment to foster growth and development of minority communities by guaranteeing that it will not discriminate in giving aid on the basis of their status of Minority Institutions.
• Article 25:
  • Article 25 of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
• Article 26:
  • The Article 26 of the Indian Constitution provides every religious denomination (or any section of it) the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
• Article 27:
  • It sets freedom as to payment of taxes for the promotion of any particular religion.
• Article 28:
  • It gives freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.
• National Commission for Minorities (NcM):
  • The NCM is an autonomous body established by the Indian government in 1992 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
    • The setting up of the Commission was envisaged in the Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution of 1978 for the enforcement and implementation of all the safeguards provided for the Minorities in the Constitution.
  • It is responsible for advising the central and state governments on matters related to the welfare and development of minority communities in India.
  • Initially five religious communities, viz., Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) were notified as minority communities by the Union Government. In 2014, Jains were also notified as another minority community.