The Centre informed the Supreme Court that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot be considered a minority institution due to its “national character.”
The highly contentious matter of AMU’s minority status was taken up by the court, where it was asserted that the university, being an institution of national importance, cannot be affiliated with any particular religion. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in written submissions, emphasized that AMU has maintained its national character since its establishment in 1875, even during the pre-independence era.
According to Mehta’s submissions, the discussions in the Constituent Assembly support the notion that a university deemed an institution of national importance must be a non-minority institution. The document highlighted the secular ethos and nature of the nation and the Constitution, stating that, given AMU’s national character, it cannot be considered a minority institution regardless of its founding and administration by a minority initially.
Mehta contended that AMU does not function predominantly as a Muslim university and is not administered by the minority. He argued that a university declared of national importance by the Constitution of India cannot be a minority institution. The potential consequences of declaring AMU a “minority institution” were discussed, including the exemption from implementing the reservation policy, which Mehta noted would have a significant impact on AMU’s admission procedures.
The Solicitor General underscored the importance of AMU maintaining its secular origins, considering its substantial size, extensive properties, and numerous students across various courses. Mehta presented facts supporting AMU’s standing among top-ranked institutions in India and stressed the unique status of AMU and Banaras Hindu University, which were placed in List I as part of Entry 63 by the framers of the Constitution.
Referring to the AMU Act, Mehta highlighted the consistent understanding of AMU’s national and non-minority character throughout amendments. He argued that amendments to the law did not change the historical fact that the university was established through the efforts of various individuals, including the State, without a predominant minority character.
The issue of AMU’s minority status has been entangled in legal complexities for decades, with historical judgments and legislative amendments shaping its status. The Supreme Court, led by a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, initiated hearings on the matter, with proceedings set to continue on Thursday.
