In a significant development, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court commenced hearings on January 9 regarding the longstanding dispute over the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). This dispute, spanning nearly 57 years, has undergone multiple adjudications in various courts.
Led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the seven-judge bench delved into the core issue while considering a batch of petitions related to the minority status of AMU. The central question posed by the bench was the impact of a statutory transformation on an institution’s minority character, specifically when a statute converts it into a mandated statutory form.
The bench raised the crucial inquiry: “It becomes a body corporate, [but] does that conversion deprive it of its minority character, or is that only a matter of form? To convert the form which was society into a body corporate, or does that change in form completely destroy the minority character?”
AMU, in its defence, underscored that the right to administer a minority institute stems from the constitutional guarantee of the right to establish one. The bench scrutinised Article 30 of the Constitution, which addresses the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. It highlighted the nuanced interpretation of administration, stating, “Now there is no absolute standard of administration that you must administer 100 per cent… in a regulated society, nothing is absolute.”
Genesis of the Dispute
A Constitution bench is currently handling pleas from AMU and other stakeholders, aiming to determine whether an educational institution created by a parliamentary statute can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution.
The roots of the dispute trace back to 2005 when AMU reserved 50 per cent of postgraduate medical course seats for Muslim candidates, asserting its minority institution status. This claim was contested by the Allahabad High Court, leading to a challenge by the Centre and AMU in the Supreme Court in 2006. In a surprising turn of events in 2016, the Centre withdrew from the appeal, refusing to recognise the minority status of the university.
On February 12, 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a seven-judge bench to address the contentious issue of AMU’s minority status, setting the stage for the ongoing legal deliberations.
The question remains that SC, ST, OBCs have already waited for almost 100 years to get their rightful due in AMU. Till how long will they have to wait for getting reservation
There are many misconceptions and controversies surrounding the status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). A section of society believes it to be a minority institution. The other section believes that it is a University established by an “Act of Parliament.” There is a third section which is not aware of the facts of the issue and hence is unable to state anything on this issue.
1981 Amendment in AMU Act: An Unconstitutional Step of Congress Govt Section 2(1) of the AMU Act stated that ‘University’ means Aligarh Muslim University. This definition was changed to ‘University’ means ‘educational institution of their choice established for the Muslims of India which originated as Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh University’.
This new definition was very cleverly drafted. It was an attempt to override the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of 1968 and also to mislead the Muslim community. It was an attempt to bring the university under the purview of Article 30 after 61 years of its existence. It was a serious deception and fraud being played on the Constitution of India. Furthur Section 5(2)(c) was added which stated, “object of the university was ‘to promote especially the educational and cultural advancement of the Muslims of India.”
Another Attempt to Introduce Reservation for Muslims in 2005
The AMU admission committee passed a resolution reserving 50 per cent seats for Muslim students in medical college and the executive committee approved it and forwarded it to the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, which was under the late Arjun Singh. Joint Secretary of HRD Ministry, vide letter dated 25/2/2005, stated that the Ministry had no objection to reservation of seats up to 50 per cent for Muslim students for admission in Medical College in AMU. Non-Muslim students approached the Allahabad High Court against this unconstitutional step
Naresh Agarwal vs Union of India 2005
- In the Allahabad High Court, Justice Arun Tandon held that :
- Muslim reservation is unconstitutional in AMU
- Aziz Basha case (1968) of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India still holds good
- AMU is not a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India
- AMU was established by an act of Parliament and not by a minority
- Parliament has tried to overturn the judgement of the Supreme Court in this manner which is wrong and unconstitutional
What is the fault of SC, ST and OBC?
Ninety eight years have passed since the AMU Act 1920 was passed establishing it as a Central University. Fifty years have passed since the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aziz Basha case reiterating that AMU is not a minority institution but a Central University established by an act of Parliament having been placed as entry 63 in the Union List. It is an institution of national importance. From Dr BR Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly to all Congress Governments under Pandit Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai – all have maintained that it was not a minority institution. But in 2005, for the first time Congress Government under Arjun Singh as the Education Minister played fraud on the Constitution of India by tampering with it with the aim to appease the Muslim minority. However these fraudulent amendments were struck down by the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court saying that they were unconstitutional.
But the question remains that SC, ST, OBCs have already waited for almost 100 years to get their rightful due in AMU. Till how long they will have to wait for getting reservation in AMU which is their Constitutional right? Further, who will compensate them for the loss of lakhs of opportunities of becoming doctors, engineers, etc if they would have got admission in AMU or appointment as a teacher and in staff in this Central University? Or is it too much to ask for?
