Sign In
Learn bits
Polity & Governance
Mahesh

09/11/24 10:18 AM IST

Supreme Court ruling in AMU minority status case

In News
  • A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently laid down in a 4-3 majority verdict a “holistic and realistic” test to determine the “minority character” of an educational institution, but left the factual determination on AMU to a smaller Bench.
Background of the case
  • In 1967, the Supreme Court in S. Azeez Basha v Union of India held that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority — it came into existence through an Act of the central legislature — and did not, therefore, qualify as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution.
  • In 1981, the government amended the AMU Act, 1920, to say that the institution was established by the Muslim community to promote the cultural and educational advancement of Muslims in India.
  • In 2005, AMU provided 50% reservation for Muslims in postgraduate medical programs.
  • In 2006, the Allahabad HC struck down both the university order and the 1981 amendment on the ground that AMU was not a minority institution as per Azeez Basha.
  • This judgment was challenged at the SC, and in 2019 the matter was referred to a seven-judge Bench.
Minority Educational Institutions
  • Under Article 30(1), all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
  • Under Article 15(5), MEIs are exempt from providing reservations for SCs and STs.
  • Minority status also allows educational institutions to exercise greater control over their day-to-day administration — from student admissions (they can reserve up to 50% seats for minority students) to the hiring of teaching and non-teaching staff.
  • While the purpose of establishing a minority institution should be the conservation of language and culture, it need not be the only purpose;
  • A minority institution will not lose its minority character by admitting students belonging to non-minorities;
  • Secular education can be imparted at a minority institution without affecting its minority character;
  • If a minority institution has received aid from the government, no student can be forced to participate in religious instruction; if the institution is fully maintained out of state funds, it cannot provide religious instruction. However these institutions must still be considered minority institutions.
Test laid down by SC
  • To determine if an institution actually has a minority character, the court held that it would have to “pierce the veil” and look into how it was established. To do this, it laid down certain criteria or “indicia” that must be considered as a part of a two-fold test.
  • ESTABLISHMENT: The first aspect of the test deals with the genesis or origin of the minority institution, the purpose of its establishment, and how the “idea” for the institution was finally implemented.
  • Courts must “trace the origin of the idea for the establishment of the institution” to determine who was the “brain behind the establishment”. For proof, a variety of sources could be considered — letters, correspondence with other community members or government officials, etc. The link must “point towards one member of the minority or a group from the community”, the court said.
  • The purpose of establishing the institution must “predominantly” be for the benefit of the minority community, even if it is not the sole purpose.
  • Here too, the court suggested looking at correspondence or even speeches from the time about the “necessity” of establishing the institution, and recognition of the “educational difficulties” faced by the communities in question.
  • ADMINISTRATION: The court held that the administration of an educational institution does not need to be handled by the minority community; it was a matter of “choice” for such an institution, and it is not “compelled” to appoint persons from the minority community for day-to-day administration.
  • That said, the majority held that courts can look at the administrative set-up to see if it “affirms” the minority character of an institution. If the administration does not seem to “protect and promote the interests of the minority”, it could be “reasonably inferred that the purpose was not to establish an educational institution for the benefit of the minority community”.
  • For institutions that were established before the Constitution came into force (like AMU), the majority held that courts must look at how the administration worked “on the date of the commencement of the Constitution” (January 26, 1950) — and whether any “regulatory measures” were used to “wrest” control from the founders
KEY DATES IN AMU’s HISTORY, LEGAL CASE
  • 1877: Syed Ahmad Khan establishes Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College for uplifting  Muslims.
  • 1920: The MAO College becomes AMU after the AMU Act is enacted.
  • 1950: Parliament declares AMU an institution of national importance.
  • 1951: AMU Act is amended, allowing non-Muslims to be members of the AMU Court, its supreme governing body at the time.
  • 1965: Another amendment expands powers of AMU’s Executive Council; University Court is no longer the supreme governing body.
  • 1967: SC rules on challenge to the amendments; says AMU cannot be classified as a minority institution (Azeez Basha case).
  • 1981: Indira Gandhi’s government amends the AMU Act, declaring AMU was established for the educational, cultural advancement of Muslims.
  • 2005: AMU introduces 50% reservation for Muslim students in postgraduate medical courses.
  • 2006: Allahabad HC quashes the policy and the 1981 amendment. The UPA government and AMU move SC against the verdict.
  • 2016: The central government withdraws from the appeal, saying the UPA government’s stand was “against the public policy of reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs/EWSs as applicable to central universities”.
Source- Indian Express

More Related Current Affairs View All

02 Dec

India’s cities, their non-communicable disease burden

'The recent case where a Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) bus driver passed away after cardiac arrest while on duty, has set off discussions on rising poor healt

Read More

30 Nov

Odisha govt will bring in law to prevent cheating in recruitment exams

'The Odisha government has decided to enact a new law with stringent penal provisions to check cheating and other discrepancies in public examinations conducted by various recruitm

Read More

29 Nov

INDIAN ARMY LAUNCHES ‘EKLAVYA’ ONLINE DIGITAL PLATFORM FOR OFFICERS’ TRAINING

' Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi  launched an online learning platform for the Indian Army nicknamed as "Eklavya".' This initiative aligns with the

Read More

India’s First Ai-Driven Magazine Generator

Generate Your Custom Current Affairs Magazine using our AI in just 3 steps