In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India overruled its 1967 judgment, which had denied AMU (Aligarh Muslim University) minority status. The judgment has reignited discussions on the intersection of education, law, and religion in India. The ruling, which offers a nuanced view on minority institutions and their governance, has left many questioning the future of AMU’s status, and the wider implications for similar institutions across the country.
The Aligarh Muslim University, founded in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, has long been a cornerstone of Muslim education in India. Sir Syed’s vision to elevate the Muslim community through modern education led to the establishment of the institution, which has evolved over the decades from a modest college to a full-fledged university. In 1920, the central legislature passed the Aligarh Muslim University Act, transforming the college into a university.
The Supreme Court’s verdict revisited this history, which had been a subject of contention for decades. While the 1967 ruling had declared AMU was not a minority institution due to its establishment through an act of the central legislature, the new judgment provides a fresh perspective on the matter. Chief Justice D. Chandu, who led the majority opinion, clarified that while Article 30 of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain rights to religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, these rights are not absolute. A religious community may create an institution but may not always have the right to exclusively manage it.
A Historical Perspective on Status OF AMU
NewsX Executive Editor Megha Sharma hosted a debate featuring prominent figures. The panelists included former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Najeeb Jung; Senior Supreme Court Lawyer, Naveen Chomal, and former Chancellor of MANUU, Firoz Bakht Ahmed, who weighed in on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Najeeb Jung provided an insightful historical perspective on the matter. He explained that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s efforts to promote modern education within the Muslim community were pivotal in the establishment of AMU. He added that while AMU originally aimed to serve the Muslim community, it has become a secular institution today, with a significant number of non-Muslim students enrolled in courses like engineering and medicine.
However, Jung also expressed concerns over the limitations of the Court’s ruling. While he acknowledged the positive aspect of setting aside the Azeez Basha case, he critiqued the decision for not fully addressing the historical context surrounding AMU’s minority status.
“The judgment does not provide complete clarity,” Jung remarked. “While Article 30 is clear on the rights of minorities to establish institutions, the ruling doesn’t offer full support to the Muslim community that AMU represents.”
Affirmative Action and the Politics of Quotas
One of the key areas of contention in the debate was the issue of affirmative action and quotas. The debate has long been a divisive one, with critics arguing that quotas have led to social fragmentation, while supporters view them as necessary for uplifting marginalized communities. Najeeb Jung defended AMU’s policy of providing reservations for Muslim minorities, emphasizing that such measures were in line with India’s constitutional commitment to ensuring equality for all citizens, particularly the disadvantaged.
Firoz Bakht Ahmed, former Chancellor of the Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), echoed a similar sentiment but introduced a cautionary note on the broader implications of the quota system. He argued that while affirmative action is important, the current system has led to a fractured society. “I’m not against helping backward communities, but the quota system has divided India into too many sections,” he remarked. “If quotas are to be given, they should not be based on religion or caste, but on economic need. The focus should be on helping the ‘Have-Nots’ from every category.”
Ahmed also highlighted the dangers of turning minority status into a political issue, warning that the political exploitation of such sensitive matters could undermine national unity. “We must remember that the issue is not about any single community but about the entire country,” he said, stressing the need for universities to be inclusive of all sections of society.
Legal and Constitutional Perspectives on AMU case
Naveen Chomal, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, brought a legal perspective to the discussion. He questioned AMU’s claim to minority status given its reliance on central government funding. Chomal pointed out that universities receiving public funds should adhere to government rules, irrespective of their minority status. “With central funding, AMU should follow the same regulations as other universities,” he stated, hinting at the complex relationship between state aid and autonomy for minority institutions.
Chomal also raised concerns over the delay in resolving the issue, pointing out that the matter has been pending since 1967. He critiqued the Supreme Court’s decision to pass the buck to a three-judge bench, thus prolonging the uncertainty. “The Court should have passed a conclusive order, especially when a seven-judge bench had already reviewed the matter,” he argued. “By pushing it to a three-judge bench, the Court has avoided a final decision on the issue.”
The delay in delivering a definitive verdict, Chomal argued, has made the issue politically charged, with governments often amending laws to appease particular communities. He cited examples like the Shah Bano case and the Religious Worship Act as instances where laws were amended to serve political agendas.
