New Delhi: After eight days of marathon hearing, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on a batch of petitions seeking minority status for the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).
A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, concluded hearing on the rejoinder submissions in the matter on Thursday.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing AMU, made submissions regarding the Muslim representation on the management of AMU including in its academic council.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing AMU Old Boys Association, submitted that it is not relevant to consider how many Muslims are on AMU's executive and academic bodies while deciding the minority status of the institution. Sibal vehemently argued that the secular structure of the country cannot be discarded by challenging the minority status of AMU.
He pressed, "What kind of tests are we applying, never before in history….. numerical strength can never be an issue" and it would be wrong to hold that Muslims or Christians have to run an institute for it to be deemed a minority institute. "Should we apply a test that will destroy the entire minority educational structure in this country? That is why I said I have a right, not a duty to administer," said Sibal.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act (which restored its minority status after the Azeez Basha judgment) did not restore the position prevailing before the 1951 Amendment Act (upheld in the Azeez Basha case).
"The (1981) amendment brought a Muslim voice into AMU but it stopped short of going back to the pre-1951 Act, or to the 1920 one…..”, said the CJI.
The bench orally observed that it is apparently a half-hearted job, even by Parliament, as it had the power to do so.
Sibal said the founder of AMU and everybody else did not think of it in a statutory sense and they were very clear that government supervision may be there but no government control, and emphasised that it was clear since the beginning. He further argued that claims regarding the founders that they were loyal to the Britishers did not dilute this aspect.
"Some wanted social change…..," he said, adding that in a secular country wedded to plurality and the Constitution, "here we are arguing that we should take away the minority status".
In February 2019, the apex court had referred to a seven-judge bench the contentious issue. A similar reference was also made in 1981. In 1967, a five-judge constitution bench in S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case held that since AMU was a central university, it could not be considered a minority institution.
In 1981, its minority status was restored when Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981. In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which the university was accorded minority status. The Congress-led UPA government and AMU challenged the Allahabad High Court order.
In 2016, the NDA government told the Supreme Court that it would withdraw the appeal filed by the previous government.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
