AMU is of national importance, how does minority status matter: Supreme Court

AMU is of national importance, how does minority status matter: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, said that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) holds the status of an institute of national importance, questioning the significance of whether it is classified as a minority institution or not.

The Court stated that the intent of Article 30 of the Constitution is not to “ghettoize the minority,” addressing the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. A five-judge constitution bench previously held in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case in 1967 that, as a central university, AMU cannot be considered a minority institution, as reported by PTI.

The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, highlighted, “Without the minority tag, the institution has continued to be an institution of national importance. How does it matter for the people whether it is a minority institution or not? It is only the brand name, AMU.”

In a recent submission, the Centre had said that minority educational institutions are not required to implement the reservation policy under Section 3 of the Central Educational Institute (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in 2012).

Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing one of the petitioners favouring the minority status of AMU, said that until the Basha judgment, the university was considered a minority institution. He argued that, due to the operation of the status quo order on the 1981 amendment, AMU continues to be a minority institution.

During the hearing, Farasat emphasized the relevance of AMU’s minority status to women’s education, suggesting that a change in status may hinder the higher education of Muslim women. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, stating that Muslim women are studying everywhere.

The Chief Justice observed that the object of Article 30 is not to ghettoize the minority and clarified that Article 30 does not mandate that the administration must exclusively be in the hands of the minority community.

The court, on Wednesday, questioned AMU’s minority character, pointing out the low number of Muslim members in the governing council.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the choice to have non-minority individuals in certain departments does not destroy the institution’s character. Sibal stressed that the inspiration, steps, and persuasion to set up the institution are all attributed to the minority community.

The arguments remain inconclusive, and the hearing will continue on January 23.

(With PTI inputs)

Watch Live TV in English

Watch Live TV in Hindi