SC affirms minority rights, sets aside its verdict that rejected AMU’s status

Context: Underlining that the determination
of the “minority character” of an institution is not a rigid concept, the
Supreme Court, in a narrow 4-3 majority verdict, overruled its 1967 ruling which
had held that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was not a minority institution. The
Court specifically negated the government’s argument that the 1920 legislation
establishing AMU did not seek to establish a minority institution at all—rather
it established an institution of national non-minority character. The majority ruling
emphasized on the establishment of the educational institutions in correspondence
with other members of the community and not just from a formalistic reading of the
legislation.

Key points

·      
Overview: A
Bench headed by the CJI will deliver its verdict on whether Aligarh Muslim
University (AMU) can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Indian
Constitution.

·      
Article 30 of the Indian
Constitution: It consists of provisions that
safeguard various rights of the minority community in the country keeping in
mind the principle of equality as well.

Article
30(1) says that all minorities, whether based on religion
or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.

Article
30(1A) deals with the fixation of the amount for acquisition
of property of any educational institution established by minority groups.

Article
30(2) states that the government should not discriminate
against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the
management of a minority, while giving aid.

·      
Controversy around AMU’s Minority
Status: It originated in 1967 when the Supreme Court
(SC) ruled on challenges to amendments to the university’s founding Act, arguing
that they stripped the Muslim community of the right to administer the
institution. The SC concluded that AMU was not established by the Muslim
minority but by an Act of Parliament (Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920). This
judgement, known as the S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India case, held that AMU
lacked minority institution status.

·      
Minority Status: Article
15(5) of the Constitution exempts minority educational institutions from
reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Since
AMU’s minority status is sub judice, and the SC directed in 2006 that status
quo be maintained, the university does not have SC/ST quotas.

If
the SC declares AMU a minority institution- AMU would
not have to reserve seats for SC/ST/OBC/EWS groups but could reserve seats for
Muslims, potentially up to 50% or more. The university’s administrative
structure would shift from its current setup, which includes a diverse
Executive Council, and it would have a separate admissions process.

·      
Arguments from the Centre and AMU: The
centre’s argument- The Centre distinguished St. Stephen’s from AMU, noting
that the former was founded privately, while AMU was created by an Act of
Parliament and continuously receives government funding. The Centre argued that
AMU, as a national institution, should uphold its secular foundations and not
prioritise one community’s interests.

Counter
arguments- AMU contended that exempting it from certain quotas
does not harm public interest, as Article 30 provides minorities with special
rights.

·      
Conclusion: The
SC’s upcoming decision will be pivotal for AMU, determining whether it can
claim minority status and retain autonomy over its admissions and governance
under Article 30. This verdict will also impact minority educational
institutions’ rights and their relationship with state policies on social
justice and equality.