Following eight days of hearings on Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, the Supreme Court has reserved its decision.
What happened during the eight days of hearings to decide whether Aligarh Muslim University qualifies as a minority institution before a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India? Take a look at this detailed synopsis.
Parties in this case
Appellant: Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa
Lawyers: Sr. Adv Dr Rajeev Dhawan; Sr. Adv. Nikhil Nayyar; Sr. Adv. Raju Ramachandran; Adv. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas; Adv. Sushma Suri; Adv. Prashant Bhushan; Adv. Ramesh Kumar Mishra; Adv. Aftab Ali Khan; Adv. Mohan Pandey
Respondent: Naresh Agarwal through Laxmi Chandra Agarwal; Union of India through Secretary; Director General of Health Services; Director of Higher Education; Medical Council of India
Lawyers: R. Venkatramani, Attorney General; Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Adv. R. C. Kohli; Adv. Gurmeet Singh Makker; Adv. Gaurav Sharma; Adv. Anup Kumar; Adv. Ejaz Maqbool; Adv. Abhinav Mukerji
Historical Background
Originally established by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1877 as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College), AMU was later incorporated by the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (AMU Act). Important modifications, such those made in 1951 and 1965, had a big impact on the governing structure, representation in the judiciary, and religious education.
Under Article 30(1) (right to establish and administer educational institutions), Article 26(a) (right to carry out religious and charitable causes), Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 29 (right to conserve culture and language), and Article 31 (right to acquire property), the petitioners challenged the amendments to the AMU Act. The case began with S. Azeez Basha & Anr versus Union of India (1967).
The Supreme Court said, “It’s possible that the Muslim minority’s activities led to the 1920 Act’s passage. However, this does not imply that the Muslim minority founded Aligarh University when it was founded in accordance with the 1920 Act.
Recognising Universities of Higher Learning for Minorities:
- Definition of Minority Status: The term “minority status” refers to educational institutions that were founded or are being run by a particular language or religious minority. Take into consideration, for example, a college founded by a Christian missionary organisation that specifically serves Christian pupils.
- Impact of Regulation: These institutions maintain their minority status even though they are governed by general education regulations. For example, a Sikh community-run school that complies with state education laws is still acknowledged as a minority institution.
- Scope of Course Offerings: Courses offered by minority-owned schools frequently combine religious and secular subjects. An Islamic institution might, for instance, offer a curriculum that includes science and humanities classes in addition to religious studies.
- Relevance of Article 30: Minorities’ rights to create and run educational institutions are protected by Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. For example, this constitutional provision protects a Jewish educational institution that operates in India.
Rejecting the claim that the petitioners’ fundamental rights were violated, the court affirmed the changes.
The term “university” was redefined as an establishment “established by the Muslims of India” in the 1981 amendment to the Act. Originally called the MAO College, the university changed its name to AMU. The university’s authority under Section 5 of the AMU Act was modified, and the university’s founding objective was expanded to encompass the growth of education and culture for the “Muslims of India.”
AMU implemented reservation policies in 2005, designating 50% of postgraduate medical degree seats for Muslim candidates. The same year, the policy was contested before the Allahabad High Court, with the argument that the reservation is illegal because AMU is not a minority institute, using the Supreme Court’s ruling in Azeez Basha as precedent.
The Allahabad High Court invalidated the reservation policy, rejecting the 1981 amendment and ruling that AMU was not a minority institution based on Azeez Basha, notwithstanding the Union government and the university’s contention that the 1981 amendment invalidated the precedent of Azeez Basha.
The reservation scheme was put on hold as a consequence of an appeal heard by the Supreme Court in 2006. The National Democratic Alliance government disavowed AMU’s minority status and withdrew from the appeal in 2016.
A three-judge bench sent the Azeez Basha ruling to a seven-judge bench for review on February 12, 2019. On October 12, 2023, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, formed a seven-judge bench to hear the case.
Originally called the MAO College, it became an university called AMU Since the case involves the subject of giving admissions preference to members of the minority group, the outcome will have a profound impact on all minorities.
Respondent’s arguments
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, argued against Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) claim to minority status in his arguments on behalf of the respondent.
Citing written submissions, he emphasised the historical background and declared that the AMU founders were ‘loyalists’ to the imperial government. He brought out the existence of a breakaway faction that opposed the loyalist position and was ultimately responsible for the founding of Jamia Millia Islamia University.
Senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi intervened to highlight the goals of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s book, An Account Of The Loyal Muhammadans Of India (1, 2 and 3), which described the founding of the MAO College, which subsequently became AMU.
Dwivedi pointed out that the main goal was to produce a class of educated Muslims who would be obedient subjects of the British Crown.
Mehta emphasised an important point: in order for AMU to be considered a minority institution, a significant portion of its non-minority staff must be in charge of the university’s administration.
He countered that the laws regulating AMU did not meet this standard, pointing out that the legislative council had taken choices at the time the university was founded.
As noted by Kapil Sibal, following the 1920 Act, AMU received ownership of all the MAO College’s facilities.
The SG argued in the Azeez Basha case that the ruling solely pertained to the 1920 Act and did not create a generally applicable statute stating that a university loses its minority status upon incorporation. He made it clear that the Azeez Basha case explicitly looked at the 1920 Act and came to the conclusion that AMU is not a minority university under that Act.
Mehta brought up the AMU Act, namely Section 23, which designates the court as the university’s highest governing authority. He clarified, though, that this should not be interpreted as granting the court final say over any issue.
He explained that admissions are entirely under the executive council’s jurisdiction by statute.
Mehta said that the dual criteria of establishment and administration are covered under Article 30 of the Constitution. The Basha case was mentioned, which invalidated AMU’s minority status due to two important conclusions.
First, it was determined that the MAO College was founded by the Muslim community by virtue of the legal authority granted by the Societies Registration Act. However, it was also determined that the establishment of a college does not entail the establishment of a university.
Second, it was found that Muslims did not run the university after looking at the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920.
The respondent’s attorney further argued that the preamble and the description of the institution were changed as a result of shifts in the historical facts surrounding the university’s founding.
The CJI responded with a statement, pointing out that the second part of the Basha ruling underlined the need for minority administration. The Chief Justice noted that no changes had been made to the current statutory requirements pertaining to administration.
Mehta contended that Basha could not be overruled unless the establishment and administration requirements were met. Since the administrative part was unaffected, it was argued that the case did not come under the purview of the previously mentioned legal precedent.
Mehta asked a question about the definition of “minority” during the proceedings and offered three possible standards for determining minority status. These tests comprise the following: the numerical test, which is based on the community’s share of the national population; the qualitative test, which looks at whether a particular group needs to be identified as a minority; and the community’s desire to be recognised as a minority.
Additionally, he made the oral argument that the concept of a minority is “political” in the sense that, in 1920, there was no such thing as a minority because all communities, including Muslims and Hindus, were subject to British administration.
Minorities were not a topic of discussion. The subject and the imperial ruler were in a relationship. He contended, “We were all subjects, treated the same, and subjected in the same way.
“Is it your contention that because prior to 1947 there was no concept of minority as we constitutionally recognise today, therefore, any institution which has been established before 1947 or really before the advent of the Constitution … no such institution will be entitled to claim minority status? It will boil down to that,” the Bench said.
“What change took place on January 26, 1950 that the Muslims, which according to you would not have minority status before 1950, suddenly got minority status after 1950? What is the big change that took place,” the Bench further asked.
Petitioner’s arguments
In response to Justice Khanna’s question about the Indian Constitution’s enforcement and post-enactment, senior attorney Dr. Dhavan spoke first for the petitioners.
He underlined that, in spite of the Azeez Basha precedent, a sizable number of UGC-designated universities have been designated as minority institutions. He argued that the term “establish” was given an unduly narrow construction by the court in Azeez Basha.
AMU implemented reservation policies in 2005, designating 50% of postgraduate medical degree seats for Muslim candidates.
In Azeez Basha, the Bench came to the conclusion that “establish” in the context of the AMU Act implies “to bring into existence.”
Dr. Dhavan argued that a minority educational institution should maintain its minority status despite being subject to statutory regulations, and that the constitutional viewpoint should be taken into account when promoting the integration of religious and liberal arts education.
In his four key points, Dr. Dhavan expressed his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Azeez Basha case.
He began by pointing out that the ruling recognises the potential for colleges to be regarded as minorities. Secondly, he made the point that the ruling acknowledges the MAO College’s Muslim heritage and its crucial role in founding the school.
Third, Dr. Dhavan contended that the AMU Act of 1920—the university’s founding statute—was not followed by the court. Finally, he argued that the ruling downplays the significance of “recognition” and ignores other possible meanings for the word “establish.”
While the Azeez Basha ruling accurately recognises AMU’s Muslim heritage, Dr. Dhavan argued that it contradicts itself by downplaying the university’s constitutional standing.
The reservation scheme was put on hold as a consequence of an appeal heard by the Supreme Court in 2006. The National Democratic Alliance government disavowed AMU’s minority status and withdrew from the appeal in 2016.
This inconsistency is said to be at odds with the Supreme Court’s position in the St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi case, where the court supported the college’s minority status due to its Christian identity, permitting it to set aside 10% of seats for Christian students in defiance of the university’s policies. The petitioners’ main point of contention is this methodological discrepancy.
Although they acknowledged AMU’s historical background, the judges in Azeez Basha mainly disregarded it. On the other hand, St. Stephen’s argument looked closely at the beginnings and focused in especially on the Christian nature of the structures.
Conclusion
The court battle over AMU’s minority status illustrates how difficult it is to strike a balance between modern realities, historical legacies, and constitutional rights. The Indian Constitution’s tenets of equality, religious freedom, and educational autonomy must be taken into account by the Supreme Court as it deliberates on this case. The decision would support the fundamental values of democracy and pluralism and influence minority education in India going forward. In the end, how this long-running conflict is resolved will determine the future of minority rights and educational governance in the nation.