Supreme Court’s verdict on the status of Aligarh Muslim University may prove to be a watershed decision not only for the Indian judiciary but also for the political as well as social fields. The Apex Court verdict reversed its 1967 SC decision in S Azeez Basha v Union of India case. In that decision the Supreme Court relied on a technical interpretation of the guarantee to religious minorities, in Article 30, to establish and run educational institutions. It said in its verdict that the AMU was neither “established nor administered” by Muslims.
The court had held in its judgment in 1967 that the legal status of the university was based on the AMU Act 1920, the legislation incorporated the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College founded by Syed Ahmed Khan in 1877, into a university. The Apex court concluded in its judgment that the AMU was actually “established” by a colonial government Act, it was later amended by legislation in independent India. The Supreme Court also said that “AMU had surrendered its minority status to the government”.
Article 30 says that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It also says that the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
However, the recent verdict of the apex court has accepted a more liberal reading of Article 30. It has been said that the “minority character of institutions cannot be rejected if they are conferred legal character by government statutes.”
The new interpretation is also important because it may have an impact on other institutions. The Aligarh Muslim University drew on this legislation to reserve 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim students. The decision was challenged before the Allahabad High Court which relied on the Supreme Court’s 1967 verdict to rule that AMU was not a minority institution.
The then UPA government at the Centre and the university’s governing body challenged the verdict. But the AMU lost the Centre’s backing after the Narendra Modi-led NDA assumed office. The Union government withdrew from the case in 2016 and contended that it did not acknowledge AMU’s minority character.
CJI Chandrachud said in his judgment that the State must grant the minority institution sufficient autonomy to enable it to protect the essentials of its minority character. After Friday’s verdict may allow the AMU the autonomy to frame its recruitment and academic policies.
The then UPA government at the Centre and the university’s governing body challenged the verdict. But the AMU lost the Centre’s backing after the Narendra Modi-led NDA assumed office. The Union government withdrew from the case in 2016 and contended that it did not acknowledge AMU’s minority character.
The Supreme Court’s judgment has come at a time when the ruling combine has pushed the demand for the Universal Civil Code. It may help the government frame new laws in such a way that the minority status is maintained. It may also help the government guarantee that the interests of the minority status are safeguarded.
