LI Network
Published on: January 25, 2024 at 12:22 IST
In the ongoing hearing of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status case, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court continued its proceedings on the 5th day, with Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta arguing that AMU cannot claim minority status due to its establishment by the British Crown through the AMU Act of 1920.
The Chief Justice of India, presiding over the 7-Judge Bench, remarked that the regulatory frameworks during the British Era aimed to maintain imperial hegemony, emphasizing the need to understand the establishment of pre-Constitution institutions like AMU in this context.
“The law is not that you can claim the right under Article 30 only if you establish after the Constitution,” stated the Chief Justice.
The current case originates from a 2006 verdict by the Allahabad High Court, which denied minority status to AMU. In 2019, a 3-judge Supreme Court bench referred the matter to a 7-judge bench. The central issue involves whether a university established and governed by a statute, such as the AMU Act 1920, can be considered a minority institution.
The Solicitor General contended that the establishment of AMU under the imperial legislation in 1920 implied the surrender of its minority rights to the British Crown. However, the Chief Justice and the bench disagreed, noting that the mere establishment by British law doesn’t necessarily indicate the surrender of minority status if the university fulfills the criteria for minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution.
The Court delved into the notion of ‘surrendering rights’ by AMU to the British and discussed the powers of the ‘Supreme Governing Body’ of the university. The bench questioned the interpretation of the Azeez Basha judgment, highlighting contradictions in its treatment of the university’s governing body.
Regarding the post-constitution scenario, the Court emphasized that seeking recognition or financial aid does not automatically entail surrendering minority status. The Chief Justice noted that the historical context of institutions like AMU, established in the pre-constitutional era, must align with the post-constitution rights regime.
The discussion also touched on the significance of the 1981 Amendment Act, which conferred minority status to AMU. The bench considered the possible effects of overruling Azeez Basha and the subsequent implications for the 1981 Amendment Act.
The Solicitor General argued that AMU, being established under the imperial act, had surrendered its minority rights, while the bench maintained that the surrendering of rights should be interpreted strictly. The Court emphasized the need to reconcile historic developments with the post-constitution rights regime.
The proceedings highlighted differences in interpreting the ‘Supreme Governing Body’ and the implications of challenging Azeez Basha’s correctness. The Court is grappling with whether the 1981 Amendment Act’s definition changes can nullify the basis of Azeez Basha.
Case Title: Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa vs. Naresh Agarwal (C.A. No. 002286 / 2006 and connected matters)