Didn’t surrender denominational character, AMU tells apex court

“The legislative debates… support this view”, he told the bench also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had earlier told the bench which is hearing a reference on AMU’s minority character that the University surrendered its denominational character at the time of its establishment by a 1920 Act of the British Parliament and could not claim the minority status now.

Dhavan said the then “education minister while introducing the AMU Bill narrated the entire history of how AMU came to being from the foundation of the Muslim Anglo Oriental College to negotiations with the muslim University for its conversion into a Muslim university”.

He sought to underline that “the Governor General congratulated the Muslim community on the passage of the Bill.” Referring to various provisions of the Act including for imparting religious education, Dhavan said they show “continuation of the spirit of MAO”.

“Existing students in the MAO College were to become the responsibility of AMU.. this is the most important example of continuity”, he said adding this can only be an argument of continuity and not surrender.

He termed the 1920 Act as “only a mechanism” to convert MOS College into a University. “There was no surrender at any point of time. This argument is entirely and totally a play on words and nothing more than that,” he contended.

He also sought to reject the argument that there was no concept of minority before the coming into force of the Constitution. In this context, Dhavan referred to the 1909 Indian Councils Act and Government of India Act 1935 recognising separate electorate for Muslims as proof of the recognition of the minority character of the Muslim community before the Constitution took effect.

The Centre had also argued that AMU was recognised by the Constitution as an institution of national importance and it “must reflect the national structure”.

On Wednesday, the CJI said “there is nothing fundamentally inconsistent with a minority institution being of national importance. You can have a minority institution which is made by Parliament by law”.