Can AMU’s minority tag be reinstated in the post-statute era? SC

NEW DELHI: The Centre raised objections on Wednesday to suggestions made by the seven-judge Supreme Court bench, which is chaired by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, that it may assess whether Aligarh Muslim University could restore its “minority character” by combining social concerns with the “legal positivist” approach.

When the bench asked the government whether minority status could be restored to AMU in the post-Constitution era, despite the fact that its Muslim patrons had willingly given it up to receive recognition and grants from the British government in 1920, it gave rise to suspicions that it might be inclined to go beyond the merits of the claim for minority status and decide the case by taking the social context into consideration.
According to CJI Chandrachud, it was important to consider the social environment in which the minority character was abandoned.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta disagreed with the CJI’s interpretation and informed the bench, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Sharma, that at the height of the independence movement in the 1920s, nationalists established prestigious universities without asking the then-government for formal support; however, the supporters of AMU, who claimed to be loyal to the British, preferred the imperial government’s backing.
“The SC should not do something to change historical facts and send a message to those who stood against the British and reward those who crawled before the imperial government,” Mehta said.
The Chief Justice of Japan said, “Will surrendering of denominational status in 1920 cost AMU for all times to come?” According to the SG, historically speaking, the supporters of AMU had willingly given up the institution’s denominational identity in order to advocate with the British for its founding. “Had Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which was established and administered by Muslims, continued as such post-Constitution, that institution would have been conferred with minority status,” he said. MAO College is regarded as AMU’s forerunner.
But according to Mehta, MAO College fully amalgamated with AMU, which was founded under a law that explicitly disregarded AMU’s denominational identity and granted the British government all authority over the university’s management.
The CJI said, “You have to realize that the British government saw education as a vital source of cultural influence and had no intention of ceding control over educational institutions. Thus, is it possible to interpret the AMU Act of 1920 as totally undermining AMU’s ability to obtain minority status in the post-Constitutional period? Muslims have been named vice-chancellors by governments over the last 103 years, starting with the British era. Is it not a sign of the nature of the organization?”
“A de facto situation cannot alter the de jure mandate,” the SG said. It is stated in the AMU Act that the VC does not have to be a Muslim. The nomination of Muslims as venture capitalists would thus not change the law. If Banaras Hindu University hired Muslim VCs, would it turn into a minority institution?”
Discussions will get back up on Tuesday.