What is the long-running legal dispute over Aligarh Muslim University’s minority character?

In 1920, the institution was conferred university status and all assets of MOA College were transferred to it. The long title to the AMU Act read: “An Act to incorporate a teaching and residential Muslim University at Aligarh.”

When did the university’s minority character come under dispute?

The legal dispute over AMU’s minority status dates back to 1967 when the Supreme Court (in S. Azeez Basha and another versus Union of India), led by then Chief Justice of India KN Wanchoo, was reviewing changes made in 1951 and 1965 to the AMU Act of 1920. These amendments affected how the university was run. For instance, originally, the 1920 Act said that the Governor General of India would be the head of the University. But in 1951, they changed it to replace ‘Lord Rector’ with ‘Visitor,’ and this Visitor would be the President of India.

Further, a provision that said only Muslims could be part of the University Court was removed, allowing non-Muslims to join. Additionally, the amendments reduced the authority of the University Court and increased the powers of the Executive Council of AMU. As a result, the Court essentially became a body appointed by the ‘Visitor’.

These alterations in the AMU’s structure faced a legal challenge in the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued primarily on the grounds that Muslims established AMU and, therefore, had the right to manage it. It was while considering the challenge to these amendments that the top court held on October 20, 1967, that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority.

The highest court determined that in 1920, Muslims could have set up a university, but that would not have guaranteed that the degrees from that university would be officially recognised by the Indian government. Hence, the court emphasised, AMU was established through a central Act to ensure the government’s recognition of its degrees. So while the Act may have been passed as a result of the efforts of the Muslim minority, it does not imply that the University, under the 1920 Act, was established by the Muslim minority, the SC ruled.

Additionally, according to the 1920 Act, the SC stated, the university was not solely operated by Muslims. Instead, its administration was entrusted to the Lord Rector and other statutory bodies. Even the University Court, which had only Muslim members, was elected by an electorate which was not exclusively Muslim, the Supreme Court noted.

Why does the dispute persist?

The SC ruling triggered nationwide protests from Muslims. In response, political authorities yielded in 1981 and introduced an amendment to the AMU Act, explicitly affirming its minority status. The amendment introduced Section 2(l) and Subsection 5(2)(c), which stated that the university was “an educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India” and “subsequently incorporated” as the AMU.

In 2005, the AMU implemented a reservation policy, reserving 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates. This was challenged in the Allahabad High Court, which, in the same year, overturned the reservation and nullified the 1981 Act. The court reasoned that the AMU could not maintain an exclusive reservation because, according to the Supreme Court’s verdict in the S. Azeez Basha case, it did not qualify as a minority institution. Subsequently, in 2006, a set of eight petitions, including one from the Union government, contested the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.

In 2016, the NDA government informed the SC that it was withdrawing the appeal filed by the government, saying, “as the executive government at the Centre, we can’t be seen as setting up a minority institution in a secular state.”

On February 12, 2019, a three-judge Bench presided by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench. On Tuesday, the Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, started hearing the case.