Supreme Court reserves verdict on minority status of Aligarh Muslim University

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions concerning whether the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is entitled to minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India [Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v Naresh Agarwal and ors]..A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma concluded hearing the rejoinder submissions in the matter today following which it reserved its verdict..Today marked the eighth and final day of hearing in the case.The questions of law involved in the matter concern the parameters for granting an educational institution minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution, and whether a centrally-funded university established by parliamentary statute can be designated a minority institution.The matter was referred to a seven-judge in February 2019 by a bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.AMU was held to be a Central University by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case of S Azeez Basha vs Union of India. In the said case, the Court also held that a minority status under Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution cannot be conferred on a Central University.However, the minority status of the institute was later reinstated by bringing in an amendment to the AMU Act of 1920. The amendment was brought about in the year 1981.This was challenged before the Allahabad High Court which in 2006 set aside the move as being unconstitutional, leading to the instant appeals by AMU before the Supreme Court.Notably, in 2016, the Central government withdrew its appeal in the matter..Hearing todayThe Court today heard rejoinder submissions by counsel defending the minority status of AMU (petitioner-side).Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan spoke of the Muslim representation in the management of AMU including in its academic council.However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also appearing for the petitioners added that the number of Muslims in AMU's executive and academic bodies is irrelevant when it comes to deciding the minority status of the institution."This whole numerical argument is irrelevant. What kind of tests are we applying, never before in history. That is why they (Centre) have no judgments (in their favour)," Sibal said.He argued that it is wrong to hold that Muslims or Christians (or a minority community) have to run an institute for it to be deemed a minority one. There may not always be enough educated minority community members at that level to fill all such posts, he explained."Should we apply a test that will destroy the entire minority educational structure in this country? That is why I said I have a right, not a duty to administer. And I can cede and challenge when I want to. No court has held otherwise. Numerical strength can never be an issue ... Where do you get the proposition that an institute for a minority has to only be administered by the minority? Please do not apply a test that is Constitutionally suspect," Sibal said.Sibal went on to assert that from 1950 onwards, the AMU has been serving the needs of the minority community, as both a de jure (by law) and de facto (in fact) minority institute."Sir Syed and everybody else did not think of the establishment (of AMU) in a statutory sense. They were very clear while founding the institution that government supervision may be there but no government control. This was clear since the very beginning. Just saying that the founders were loyal to the Britishers does not dilute this aspect; some wanted social change. If at all, this argument is just communal," Sibal submitted.The senior counsel further argued that the secular structure of the country cannot be discarded by challenging the minority status of AMU."One small citadel of learning in a country of 1.4 billion people - what are you trying to do? In a secular country wedded to plurality and the Constitution, here we are arguing that we should take away the minority status. Let me just say that if this happens then it will be a sad day for the country, that is all," he said in conclusion..Meanwhile, the CJI observed that the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act (which sought to restore its minority status after the Azeez Basha judgment) did not restore the position prevailing before the 1951 amendment Act (upheld in the Azeez Basha case)."The (1981) amendment brought a Muslim voice into AMU but it stopped short of going back to the pre-1951 Act, or to the 1920 one. That was to say a half-hearted job, even by parliament, because it had the power to do so," CJI observed..Advocate Shadan Farasat, while referring to the 1981 amendment, stated that it is not the responsibility of AMU or private parties to defend the parliament. "Government or executive does not have the choice to support the amendment or not. It is in the exclusive domain of the judiciary. We are only supporting the amendment because parliament has spoken in our favour," Farasat said.Advocate MR Shamshad stated that the case will impact several minority rights in the country, and yet the arguments by the other side were such that Article 30 is reduced to a "decorative" provision..Read our detailed coverage of the hearings so far:Day 1Day 2Day 3Day 4Day 5Day 6Day 7.[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing]