Supreme Court to Decide on Aligarh Muslim University’s Minority Status (GS Paper 2, Polity)
Why in News?
- The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver a verdict on whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.
- This decision is significant, as it will determine the university’s rights to autonomy in governance and admissions.
- The case will be decided on the last working day of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), marking an important milestone in the ongoing legal debate.
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution:
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the rights of minorities, particularly in relation to establishing and administering educational institutions. It includes the following provisions:
- Article 30(1): Minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
- Article 30(1A): Ensures that the government cannot interfere with the management of minority educational institutions in relation to the acquisition of property.
- Article 30(2): Prohibits the government from discriminating against any educational institution solely because it is managed by a minority group, especially when providing aid.
Background of the Controversy around AMU’s Minority Status:
The controversy surrounding AMU’s minority status dates back several decades.
- 1967 Supreme Court Ruling: In the case S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that AMU, although historically linked to the Muslim community, was not a minority institution. The university was established by an Act of Parliament (the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920), and the court held that it lacked minority status, as it wasn’t directly established by the Muslim minority.
- Subsequent Amendments and Legal Developments: In 1981, the Indian government amended the AMU Act to assert that the university had been founded by the Muslim community to advance their educational and cultural objectives. However, this amendment was struck down by the Allahabad High Court in 2006, which reaffirmed the Azeez Basha judgment, declaring that AMU could not claim minority status.
- Ongoing Legal Debate: The matter has since been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, with legal arguments presented over the years. In February 2024, a seven-judge bench, led by the CJI, reserved its judgment after hearing arguments from both the Centre and AMU.
What Minority Status Entails for AMU:
If AMU is recognized as a minority institution, several key changes would follow:
- Admissions and Quotas: Under Article 15(5), minority institutions are exempt from certain reservations, such as those for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). AMU could introduce reservation policies favoring Muslims, potentially allowing it to reserve up to 50% or more of seats for Muslim students.
- Governance Structure: The university’s administrative structure could shift, with greater autonomy for the Muslim community in governing the institution. This could lead to a restructuring of the Executive Council, which currently includes representatives from diverse backgrounds.
- Affirmation of Article 30 Rights: The recognition of AMU as a minority institution would allow it to assert the rights granted to minorities under Article 30 to manage and administer its educational affairs independently of government interference.
Arguments from the Centre and AMU:
- Centre’s Argument: The Centre distinguishes AMU from other minority institutions like St. Stephen's College (Delhi), which was privately founded. It argues that AMU was established by an Act of Parliament and continues to receive significant government funding. Therefore, the Centre believes AMU should maintain its secular nature and not prioritize one community over others. The Centre also contends that as a national institution, AMU should align with broader national goals and public interests.
- AMU’s Counter-Arguments: AMU, on the other hand, asserts that its rights as a minority institution should be recognized, even if it receives government funding. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that minority rights contribute to societal equality by balancing the needs of different social groups. He pointed to the St. Stephen’s College ruling (1992), which affirmed the right of minority institutions to administer themselves, regardless of government funding.
AMU’s legal team also referenced other examples of institutions, such as Aliah University in Kolkata, which retains its minority status despite receiving government support, to highlight that AMU should be allowed to do the same.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on AMU’s minority status will have significant implications.
- It will determine whether AMU can exercise the special rights afforded to minority institutions under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, particularly with respect to admissions and governance.
- The verdict will not only affect AMU but also set a precedent for other educational institutions in India that claim minority status, balancing the interests of social justice and equality with the rights of minority communities to administer their educational institutions independently.
- The decision will mark an important juncture in the relationship between state policies on social justice and the autonomy of minority educational institutions in India.
