On Friday, the Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, overturned the 1967 decision in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, which served as the foundation for denying Aligarh Muslim University minority status. It did, however, leave it to a three-judge bench to reconsider the AMU’s minority status based on the criteria developed in this decision.
A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered four separate judgments in the Aligarh Muslim University minority status case. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who headed the bench, said there were four separate opinions, including three dissenting verdicts.
The CJI said he has written the majority verdict for himself and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
Justice Chandrachud said Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma had penned their separate dissenting verdicts.
After eight days of hearing arguments, the bench reserved its ruling on the subject on February 1.
On February 1, dealing with the intractable problem of the AMU’s minority status, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1981 modification to the AMU Act, which essentially granted it minority status, performed a “half-hearted job” and did not return the institution to its pre-1951 standing.
While the AMU Act of 1920 establishes a teaching and residential Muslim university in Aligarh, the 1951 modification eliminates mandatory religious education for Muslim students at the university.
The vexed question has repeatedly tested Parliament’s legislative acumen and judiciary’s prowess in interpreting complex laws involving the institution that was founded in 1875 as Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College by prominent Muslim community members led by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Years later in 1920, it transformed into a university under the British Raj.
“One thing which is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position as it stood prior to 1951. In other words, the 1981 amendment does a half-hearted job,” Justice Chandrachud had said while proceeding to close the arguments.
“I can understand if the 1981 amendment had said… okay, we are going back to the original 1920 statute, confer complete minority character on this (institution),” the CJI had said.
Earlier, the BJP-led NDA government refused to accept the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act and insisted that the court should go by the five-judge constitution bench verdict in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case in 1967. The Constitution bench had then held that since the AMU was a central university, it cannot be considered a minority institution.
The top court had said it needed to examine the 1981 amendment and whether it restored the institution to the status it enjoyed before 1951.
Those who put forward the view favouring a minority status for the institution, including veteran lawyer Kapil Sibal, contended that the mere fact that only 37 of the 180-member governing council is Muslim does not detract from its credentials as a Muslim minority institution.
Others like Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended a university getting enormous funds from the Centre and having been declared an institution of national importance cannot claim to belong to a particular religious denomination.
The Allahabad high court had struck down the provision of the 1981 law by which the university was accorded minority status. Appeals were filed in the apex court, including by the AMU, against the high court verdict.
The row over the AMU’s minority status has been caught in a legal maze for the last several decades.
The top court referred the contentious issue to a seven-judge bench on February 12, 2019. A similar reference was also made in 1981.
The Congress-led UPA government at the Centre moved in an appeal against the 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court that quashed the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act. The university also filed a separate petition against it.
The NDA government spearheaded by the BJP told the Supreme Court in 2016 that it will withdraw the appeal filed by the erstwhile UPA dispensation.
It cited the apex court’s 1967 judgement in the Basha case to claim that AMU was not a minority institution since it was a central university funded by the government.
Get the latest news updates and stay informed with FELA NEWS!
Source: HT
