The legal debates surrounding Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) asking for the status of a minority have been a regular subject of judicial scrutiny in India. Established in the late 19th century and designated as a minority institution, AMU’s implications for educational rights and minority protection under the Indian Constitution are paramount. This article explores the historical background, lawsuit, key issues, barriers, and social consequences of AMU’s minority status.
Table of Contents
Aligarh Muslim University: Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal
The Bench
A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India heard the case on AMU’s minority status in November 2024. It was to be heard by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. The bench delivered a 4:3. Reversing an appeal in 1967, which denied AMU’s minority status.
Case Timeline
- 1875: The Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College was founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan to impart modern education to Muslims of India.
- 1920: The college was made into AMU by the Indian Legislative Council passing the Aligarh Muslim University Act.
- 1967: In S. Azeez Basha v. According to a ruling by the Supreme Court in March this year, AMU was not a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution as it was established by a central statute that is the Union of India.
- 1981: The Act to assert the university’s minority status was amended by Parliament, which was later challenged in the courts.
- 2005: The Allahabad High Court struck down the 1981 amendment and held that AMU was not a minority institution.
- 2024: The 1967 judgment was overruled by the Supreme Court in a 4:3 majority verdict, which allowed AMU to claim the minority status.
Key Issues
- Establishment and Administration: Whether AMU was ‘established and administered’ by the Muslim community as essential for minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution.
- Legislative vs. Community Establishment: The 1920 Act in creating AMU: Assessing the impact and whether statutory action renders AMU’s minority character nugatory.
- Constitutional Rights: The state’s interest in enacting legislation for educational entities while balancing such interest with the rights of .minorities to associate and administer educational institutions
Challenges and New Findings
- Interpretation of ‘Establish’: They have, and in 1967 the Supreme Court judgment on ‘establish’ was narrowly interpreted with reference to legislative creation. That verdict was expanded in 2024, as it extended the interpretation to include the community, being the founder of the institution.
- Role of Amendments: The 1981 amendment was enacted to try to restore AMU’s minority status. However, its legal validity was in dispute, and the resulting litigations were protracted.
- Evolving Jurisprudence: The 2024 judgment adjusts judicial understanding away from the fact that statutory establishment is per se inconsistent with the minority character of an institution.
The Judgment
On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court, by a 4:In 1967 the Azeez Basha judgment was overruled by the 3 majority. The Court found that an institution does not cease to be a minority institution merely because it was founded by a statute. It is a question of who created the establishment and who took part of the community. A separate bench was referred to for detailed examination to decide the final determination of AMU’s minority status.
Social Perspective
Debate on AMU’s minority status is linked to wider social issues like minority rights, the autonomy of education and secularism. Some find affirming AMU’s minority status indispensable for the preservation of cultural and educational rights of the Muslim community. But others claim that state funded institution should follow secular principles to provide access to all citizens.
Implications
- Educational Autonomy: If recognized as a minority institution, AMU would be able to introduce policies in favor of the Muslim community through, for example, giving preference to a member of the community in admission and faculty appointments.
- Legal Precedent: Such basis is set up by the judgment and other institutions seeking minority status can cite the criteria under Article 30 of the Constitution.
- Policy Formulation: The decision could play a role in the government’s decision as to how to treat minority educational institutions, and may result in legislative reform.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Supreme Court of 2024 is a defining moment of the discussion carried out on the rights of the minorities and education autonomy in India. The Court overturned the 1967 precedent, and paves the way for AMU to reclaim its minority status, subject to further judicial review. Dedicated to those historical moments this development highlights the interplay of constitutional provisions, legislative action, and judicial interpretation in the nation’s educational landscape.
