Founded in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College and later renamed Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) under the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920, the institution was created to advance modern education and welfare for Muslims. This historical and cultural foundation emphasizes its minority status, which has sparked considerable legal and political discourse in India.

The Indian Constitution protects the cultural and educational rights of minorities through Articles 29 and 30, which serve as the foundation for AMU's assertion of minority status. Judicial interpretations of these articles support the notion that institutions set up by minorities to benefit their communities maintain their minority character, even when receiving state assistance. AMU's situation illustrates this principle, showcasing its vital role in safeguarding the unique identity of the Muslim community.

Constitutional Provisions Affirming the Minority Status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU):

The minority status of the AMU is buttressed by the following arguments:

1. Foundation and Intent of Establishment: AMU was originally founded as the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, specifically to advance the educational interests of the Muslim community. Its transformation into a university through the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, does not change its foundational purpose or the role of the Muslim community in its establishment. Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. AMU's origin, coupled with its explicit purpose to uplift the Muslim community, aligns directly with this constitutional protection.
    
2. 1981 Amendment to the AMU Act: The 1981 amendment to the AMU Act clarified that the university was established by the Muslim community to promote their educational and cultural interests. This legislative recognition reinstated AMU's minority character following the misinterpretation in the Azeez Basha case (1967). The amendment's validity should be upheld as it rectifies the historical and legal mischaracterization of AMU's origins and aligns with the community's intent at the time of its establishment.
    
3. Precedents of State-Supported Minority Institutions: The minority status of several institutions, such as St. Stephen's College and Sophia Girls' College, has been upheld despite receiving state support. Courts have consistently ruled that legislative or financial involvement by the state does not negate the minority character of an institution if its establishment and administration are rooted in a minority community's intent. AMU's case is analogous, as its origins lie in the efforts of the Muslim community, and subsequent state involvement does not dilute its minority character. Upholding AMU's minority status would ensure parity and prevent discriminatory treatment of a historically significant institution.
    
4. Protection of Article 29 of the Constitution: Article 29 of the Indian Constitution protects the cultural and educational rights of minority groups. Its purpose is to safeguard the interests of religious, linguistic, and cultural minorities in India.
   • Any group of citizens in India that possesses a unique language, script, or culture is entitled to maintain and promote its linguistic and cultural heritage. This clause plays a crucial role in ensuring the preservation and advancement of the distinct identity and heritage of minority communities.
   • Minorities, whether defined by religion or language, have the right to create and manage educational institutions that serve their specific cultural and linguistic requirements. Article 29 further prohibits any discrimination against citizens based on religion, race, caste, language, or any combination thereof in relation to admission into educational institutions supported or maintained by the state.
      
5. D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. The State of Punjab (1971): In the case of D.A.V. College, Jalandhar v. The State of Punjab (1971), the Supreme Court determined that establishing a university and teaching the Punjabi language does not violate the first clause of Article 29.
    
6. St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992): In St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992), the Supreme Court examined whether minority educational institutions could reserve seats for students from their own community. The court concluded that minority institutions are allowed to admit students from their own community as long as the admission process remains fair and transparent.
    
7. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka: In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court considered the rights of minority educational institutions to establish and manage their own establishments. The court affirmed the autonomy of minority institutions in terms of admissions and administration, highlighting their right to maintain their own character and identity.
    
8. Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India (regarding Jallikattu): In the case of Animal Welfare Board v. Union of India (regarding Jallikattu), the Supreme Court assessed whether the practice of Jallikattu was protected as a cultural right under Article 29 of the Indian Constitution. The court upheld Jallikattu as permissible under the 2017 Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. In 2023, a five-judge bench overturned the earlier ruling made by a two-judge bench in 2014 in Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, which had banned such sports, including Jallikattu.
    
9. Kerala Education Bill Case (1958): The Supreme Court determined that minority institutions, as outlined in Article 30(1), are entitled to receive state aid without forfeiting their minority status, provided that their essential characteristics and administrative independence are maintained.
    
10. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005): The Court concluded that government support for minority institutions does not infringe upon their rights under Article 30(1), as long as these institutions remain under the control of their respective communities and continue to fulfil their original mission.
     
11. St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974): In this significant case, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of minority institutions to oversee their operations, even when benefiting from state funding, as long as they adhere to reasonable regulations.
     
12. Approval of Parliament is Required: Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) located in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh; Banaras Hindu University (BHU) situated in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh; and the University of Delhi in Delhi are recognized as institutions of national importance according to Entry 63 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, as outlined in Article 246. These universities are governed by the Ministry of Education, and any legislative modifications to their administration or governance must be passed by Parliament.
     
13. Strengthened by Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act of 1981: The Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act of 1981 was enacted to reaffirm AMU's minority character. This legislation explicitly stated that the university was established by Muslims to promote their educational and cultural advancement, thereby solidifying its status as a minority institution.
     
14. Supported by Article 30(1) of the Constitution: Article 30(1) guarantees minorities the right to establish and run educational institutions of their choice. This provision serves as the cornerstone for AMU's assertion of minority status, enabling religious and linguistic minorities to maintain their cultural identity through education.
     
15. Approval of the Preamble: The Preamble of the Constitution defines India as a secular state, ensuring the protection of minority rights, including those pertaining to educational institutions. This secular framework supports a favourable interpretation of Articles 29 and 30, which helps preserve AMU's minority status.
     
16. Commitment to Pluralism and Inclusivity: AMU's minority status reflects India's commitment to pluralism and inclusivity. By protecting the rights of minorities to establish and manage their own institutions, the Constitution promotes cultural diversity. Ongoing discussions and judicial decisions regarding AMU highlight the delicate balance between autonomy and accountability within a secular democracy.
     
17. No violation of Article 14: Some critics contend that Article 14 guarantees equal treatment and legal safeguards for all individuals. While AMU's designation as a minority institution offers specific advantages under Article 30, it must still comply with Article 14 to avoid discriminating against non-minority students. However, these critics frequently ignore the fact that the entire Muslim community is excluded from reservation benefits, despite facing conditions that may be more challenging than those experienced by SCs or STs in certain regions of the country, thereby neglecting the possible infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution according to convenience.

Legal Position:
In the 1967 Azeez Basha Case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is not a minority institution under Article 30(1) because it was established by an Act of Parliament, not by the Muslim community, thereby denying its claim to minority status. In response, Parliament amended the AMU Act in 1981 to assert that it was established by Muslims to promote their educational interests, attempting to restore its minority status.

However, in a 2005 ruling, the Allahabad High Court deemed this amendment unconstitutional, reaffirming that AMU is not a minority institution due to its parliamentary origins. The matter is currently under review by the Supreme Court, amidst varying positions taken by successive governments regarding AMU's minority status, reflecting political dynamics. Currently, the issue of AMU's minority status is still unresolved, awaiting a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court of India.

On November 5, 2024, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court reached a 4:3 decision to overturn the 1967 ruling in Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which had denied Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status on the basis that it was neither founded nor managed by the Muslim community. The previous ruling had interpreted Article 30(1) of the Constitution-granting religious and linguistic minorities the right to "establish and administer" educational institutions-as necessitating that both criteria be satisfied simultaneously.

The former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who authored the majority opinion along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, determined that the Azeez Basha decision was flawed in its claim that institutions created by legal statutes cannot possess minority status. The Chief Justice also established criteria for evaluating whether an institution qualifies as a minority institution.

However, the question of AMU's minority status remained unresolved, with the panel instructing a smaller bench to apply the newly defined criteria to make this determination. Dissenting Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and S.C. Sharma maintained support for the interpretation established in Azeez Basha.

Justice A.M. Ahmadi's Insights and Contributions on the Minority Status and Autonomy of Aligarh Muslim University:

The history of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) spans over a century, dating back to its establishment in 1877 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a prominent Muslim reformer of the 19th century. He founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (MAO College) in Aligarh with the goal of promoting modern British education among Muslims while maintaining Islamic values.

The Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 transformed MAO College and another Muslim University Association into a single institution known as Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). Originally, the university's governing body was mandated to include exclusively individuals from the Islamic faith. However, amendments made in 1951 and 1965 altered this structure, addressing the financial challenges facing India in relation to the university's maintenance.

The 1951 amendment removed the requirement for compulsory religious education for Muslim students and eliminated the provision that enforced Muslim representation on the governing body. In April 1965, violence erupted during a meeting of the AMU Court, resulting in the humiliation and injury of Vice Chancellor Ali Yavar Jung. This incident led to the enactment of the AMU Amendment Act of 1965, which granted significant control to the central government.

Consequently, this amendment effectively placed executive and administrative authority in the hands of the visitor, typically the Union Minister of Education, sidelining the university's governing body. The 1965 Act raised questions regarding AMU's status as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which grants minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions.

In response, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court, arguing that the 1965 amendment violated the constitutional protections afforded to AMU as a minority institution. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that AMU was not solely established or administered by the Muslim minority. In 1981, the AMU Act was amended once again, redefining the university as an institution established by the Muslims of India, while also restoring its minority character without explicitly committing to it.

This amendment provided a legislative basis for recognizing AMU's protection under Article 30, satisfying both parties without making a firm assertion. However, in 2005, when the university reserved 50% of its medical seats for Muslim candidates, its minority status came into contention once again, leading to legal disputes.

The university maintained that its actions were permissible under the 1981 amendment, arguing that the Aziz Basha ruling was nullified and that it could make provisions for the benefit of Muslim students. However, the Allahabad High Court rejected the university's claim in 2006, leading to the Supreme Court stating that the reservation policy's constitutionality would be referred to a larger bench.

Justice Ahmadi has expressed clear views on this matter, asserting that AMU's character is that of a minority institution, and criticizing previous interpretations by judges as inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the importance of the university being a party in decisions regarding its character.

During his tenure as Chief Justice of India, Justice Ahmadi took the initiative to assemble a special eleven-judge bench to re-examine the interpretation of educational rights for minorities as outlined in Article 30 of the Constitution, with the goal of resolving this contentious issue prior to his retirement. Demonstrating judicial integrity, he recused himself from participating in the bench.

Acknowledging the importance of the situation, Tahir Mehmood, who was the Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities at the time, advocated for the commission's formal engagement in the case as amicus curiae. Regrettably, delays from the government left the matter unresolved by the time Justice Ahmadi stepped down, leading to complications in subsequent years.

Justice Ahmadi criticized the Allahabad High Court's ruling as fundamentally flawed and expressed confidence that the central government would take action to overturn it. He warned that failing to resolve the issue could require a constitutional amendment, given its potential ramifications for Parliament's authority to modify laws affecting other universities, including Banaras Hindu University (BHU) and Delhi University.

In a public address, Justice Ahmadi referred to the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which delineates legislative powers between the Union and the States in List 1 and List 2 respectively. According to Entry 63 of the Union List, Aligarh Muslim University, BHU, and Delhi University are classified as institutions of national importance, established by Acts of Parliament. Therefore, any administrative modifications to these universities necessitate statutory amendments enacted by Parliament.

In his personal writings, Justice Ahmadi pointed out attempts by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) to meddle in AMU's operations. During his initial term as Chancellor, he had to remind the ministry that AMU was governed by the Central University Statute, which made any external intervention in its admission processes inappropriate.

He also successfully opposed the ministry's attempts, through the University Grants Commission (UGC), to interfere in the University's financial management. Justice Ahmadi expressed optimism that AMU's leadership would remain resolute in resisting political interference that could jeopardize its autonomy.

Through both his actions and writings, Justice Ahmadi emphasized the crucial need to safeguard AMU's minority status and institutional independence, highlighting the importance of legislative and judicial clarity in upholding these principles.

Every dark cloud has a silver lining, and this situation is no exception. It provides the university an opportunity to reevaluate the correctness of the decision in the case of Aziz Badshah. This issue is a persistent thorn that will continue to cause discomfort due to the division bench's perspective on Parliament's authority to amend the 1920 Act in light of Entry 63 in List One.

Consequently, the only course of action is to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, there are flaws in the judgments of both the learned single judge and the division bench, and I sincerely hope that a larger bench of the Supreme Court will rectify these errors, Justice Ahmadi opined in his speech made in the capacity of the Chancellor of the AMU.

Possible Consequences if the Supreme Court's Ruling Revokes Aligarh Muslim University's Minority Status:

Article 30 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that minorities, identified by either religion or language, possess the right to establish and operate educational institutions of their preference. It guarantees equitable compensation in the event that the property of these institutions is acquired and prevents the State from discriminating against institutions run by minorities when providing assistance.

The potential revocation of Aligarh Muslim University's (AMU) minority status by the Supreme Court presents a serious threat to its core mission of promoting education for the Muslim community in India. Founded to cater to the educational and socio-economic needs of Muslims, AMU depends on the protections granted by minority status under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which permits the university to reserve seats for Muslim students.

This arrangement is crucial for ensuring that educational opportunities remain accessible to the community it was designed to support. If AMU loses this designation, it risks eliminating these vital reservations, which could significantly restrict opportunities for Muslim students and reduce the university's appeal to future learners. Consequently, the institution may struggle to achieve its educational goals, undermining its foundational purpose and jeopardizing its position as a key centre for Muslim education in India.

Moreover, the denial of minority status would significantly curtail AMU's autonomy in governance and admissions. Operating as a minority institution grants AMU the flexibility to formulate admission policies that specifically address the needs of the Muslim community, allowing it to provide tailored support to its students.

However, with the revocation of this status, AMU may become subject to stricter governmental oversight and standardized policies that do not account for the unique circumstances and requirements of its founding community. This loss of independence could impede the university's ability to effectively address the diverse challenges faced by its student body and might compromise its adherence to the core values of inclusivity and empowerment that underpin its mission.

Furthermore, the rejection of AMU's minority status poses a threat to its cultural and historical identity, which has long symbolized Muslim education and empowerment in India. The revocation could not only diminish the university's contributions to the broader educational landscape but also hinder its efforts to promote social equity and inclusion for marginalized communities.

The loss of minority status may be interpreted as a challenge to the principles of pluralism and multiculturalism that are vital to Indian society. Such developments may foster a sense of insecurity among minority communities, raising concerns about the preservation of their social, cultural, and religious identities in an increasingly majoritarian political climate. Consequently, some may perceive this ruling as indicative of the ruling government's influence over the judiciary, further exacerbating tensions and feelings of disenfranchisement within these communities.

References:

1. Vahanvaty, I. (2024). The life and times of Justice A. M. Ahmadi: The fearless judge. New Delhi: Juggernaut Books.
2. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1888152/
3. Ministry of Education, Government of India. Institutions of national importance. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.in/institutions-national-importance
4. SC Observer. AMU minority status judgment: Supreme Court overrules Azeez Basha. Retrieved from https://www.scobserver.in/reports/amu-minority-status-judgement-pronouncement-supreme-court-overrules-azeez-basha/

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565

Also Read:

• Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status Case: A Timeline and Legal Analysis
• Violation of Reservation policy in Aligarh Muslim University