Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has been at the centre of a legal battle for decades over its minority status. The university, founded in 1875, has been a pioneer in the Indian education landscape, holding an A+ rank from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
Despite consistently securing top positions among Indian universities by both national and international rating entities, AMU's identity has been a subject of contention.
AMU's historical roots trace back to the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MOA) College established by Muslim reformer Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875. The institution, later conferred university status in 1920, aimed to address educational backwardness among Muslims and promote their participation in government services.
Over the years, AMU's academic excellence has been acknowledged by various accreditation bodies, further solidifying its position as a prestigious educational institution.
The crux of the legal dispute revolves around Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which entitles religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions without discrimination in government aid. This provision underscores the government's commitment to fostering the growth of minority communities through education.
In 1920, the institution gained university status, incorporating assets from MOA College, with the AMU Act emphasizing its identity as a "teaching and residential Muslim University."
The dispute over AMU's minority status emerged in 1967 during a review of amendments made to the AMU Act in 1951 and 1965. Changes included replacing the 'Lord Rector' with the 'Visitor,' who would be the President of India. Furthermore, the amendments allowed non-Muslims to join the University Court, reducing its authority and empowering the Executive Council.
The Supreme Court, in a pivotal ruling on October 20, 1967, declared that AMU was not established or administered by the Muslim minority. The court emphasized that while Muslims may have initiated the university, its recognition by the government was essential. The court took the view that the central Act's passage ensured government recognition, dismissing the notion that the university was solely established by the Muslim minority.
This ruling sparked nationwide protests among Muslims, leading to a 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, explicitly affirming its minority status. However, the legal saga continued, with a 2005 Allahabad High Court decision nullifying the 1981 Act and challenging the university's exclusive reservation policy for Muslims. The High Court argued that, as per the Supreme Court's earlier verdict, AMU did not qualify as a minority institution.
In 2016, the NDA government informed the Supreme Court of its withdrawal from the appeal, stating that setting up a minority institution in a secular state was not within the government's purview. On February 12, 2019, a three-judge Bench referred the matter to the current seven-judge Bench, which commenced hearings this Tuesday.
The legal wrangling underscores the delicate balance between the autonomy of educational institutions and the government's role in recognizing and supporting them. The dispute raises crucial questions about the interpretation of Article 30(1) and the evolution of AMU's identity from its establishment in 1875 to the present day.
The outcome holds implications not only for AMU but also for the broader understanding of minority rights and the relationship between educational institutions and the government in the Indian context. The judicial proceedings promise to shape the future of minority education in the country, echoing the ideals enshrined in Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
A significant twist in the narrative came as the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that AMU cannot be considered a minority institution due to its "national character". Mehta, in written submissions filed before the Supreme Court on, emphasized that AMU has always been an institution of national importance, even in the pre-independence era.
He cited Entry number 63 of the Union List, which places AMU alongside Banaras Hindu University (BHU) and Delhi University (DU) under the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.
Mehta's argument delves into the context, asserting that AMU's origin as a community initiative in 1875 does not diminish its subsequent evolution into a national institution. The submission highlights the intent of the Constituent Assembly, which deemed AMU a "National Institution." This position challenges the notion of AMU as a minority institution, given its recognition as an institution of national importance.
While acknowledging AMU's historical significance as a denominational university initiated by the Muslim community, Mehta's argument pivots on the notion that its evolution into an institution of national importance transcends its communal origins. The government contends that AMU's status as an "educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India" does not exclude it from being a national institution.
The outcome holds implications not only for AMU but for the broader understanding of minority rights and the role of educational institutions in shaping a united and diverse nation. The debate surrounding AMU resonates with a broader discourse on inclusivity and the delicate balance between autonomy and national identity in India's rich tapestry of educational institutions.