38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Judiciary

AMU is not & cannot be a minority institution, Centre tells SC [Read Submission]

By LAWSTREET NEWS NETWORK      11 January, 2024 04:25 PM      0 Comments
AMU is not & cannot be a minority institution, Centre tells SC [Read Submission]

NEW DELHI: The Union government has told the Supreme Court that Aligarh Muslim University is not and cannot be a university of any particular religion or religious denomination as any university which is declared by the Constitution of India to be of national importance should, by definition, cannot be a minority institution.

“Owing to the obviously secular ethos and nature of the nation and the Constitution, considering the fact that AMU is an institution of educational ‘national character’ it cannot be considered to be a minority institution irrespective of the question whether it was established and administered by the minority at the time of inception or not,” it said.

The Centre also defended before the Supreme Court its 2016 decision to withdraw the challenge to the Allahabad High Court's order on minority status of Aligarh Muslim University, saying it was based upon the factual and constitutional considerations alone but the varsity tried to give it a political colour.

The government also claimed the previous decision to challenge the HC's order of 2006 was against public interest and contrary to the policy to reservation for the marginalised sections of the society. It was also in the teeth of a five-judge bench decision in the Azeez Basha’s case in 1967.

In its written submission before the seven-judge Constitution bench, the Union government led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the
Constitution did not treat Aligarh Muslim University either as minority institution or otherwise.

It asserted that the request for withdrawal is based on the original stand taken by the Union of India.

“The stand taken by the government to withdraw the challenge to the judgment of the high court is based upon constitutional considerations alone and the change of governments is inconsequential,” the submissions stated.

Mehta maintained that the stand taken earlier by the government to file a special leave petition challenging the judgment of the high court was contrary to the original stand of the central government taken in the Azeez Basha case by a five-judge Constitution bench.

“It was also contrary to the binding judgment of this court in the Azeez Basha case. The stand taken to file SLP was also against the public policy of reservation meant for SCs/STs/OBCs/EWSs as applicable to central universities, therefore, against public interest. It is, therefore, submitted that the prayer for withdrawal of appeal has been made after due consideration of the legal position,” Mehta’s submissions said.

The Constitution bench had in the case S Azeez Basha vs Union of India in 1967, held that AMU was not entitled to minority education status as it “was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority”.

The Centre alleged that AMU was trying to give it a political colour.

“It is unfortunate that a factual issue which has already been authoritatively decided by a constitution bench of this court is being politicised and controverted on misconceived grounds. It is reiterated that the decision of the Government to withdraw the SLP is based upon the factual and constitutional considerations alone,” the submissions said.

In 1967, a five-judge constitution bench in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case in 1967 held that since the Aligarh Muslim University was a central university, it cannot be considered a minority institution. The minority status, however, was restored when Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981.

The Centre said Aligarh Muslim University has always been an institution of national importance even in the pre-independence era. “A survey of the documents surrounding the establishment of the Aligarh Muslim University and even the then existing legislative position enunciates that the AMU was always an institution having a national character," it said.

It also opposed AMU’s contention that the judgement in Azeez Pasha needs to be reconsidered saying it is settled law.

The central government pointed out that AMU “has so far not challenged any of the amendments namely the first amendment in the year 1951, the second amendment in the year 1965, the third amendment in the year 1972 and the fourth amendment in the year 1981 in the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920”.

“The University can, thus, not re-agitate the factual and fact based legal controversies already decided by a five-Judge bench which is clear from the present reference,” it said.

The government said the case of Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University is sui generis case since the framers of the Constitution chose to place these two Universities in List I as a part of Entry 63, though the subject of education is otherwise in the State List (at the time of Independence).

Relying upon the constituent assembly debates, the submissions said “the said debates by the founding fathers make the non-minority character of both these institutions crystal clear”.

Mehta’s submissions also said that “no other universities are specifically named in the constitution itself thereby highlighting the national importance of the AMU and the national/non-minority character of AMU”.

In 2005, AMU had reserved 50% seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates by claiming it to be a minority institution, which was set aside by the Allahabad High Court. In 2006, Centre and AMU challenged the high court’s decision before the Supreme Court. In 2016, the Centre withdrew from the appeal contending that it does not acknowledge the minority status of the university.

The top court had on February 12, 2019 referred to a seven-judge bench the contentious issue of the minority status of AMU. A similar reference was also made in 1981.

 

[Read Submission]
 



Share this article:

About:

Explore Comprehensive Legal Reporting with LawStreet Journal: Your Go-To Source for Supreme Court an...Read more

Follow:
TwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Grant Bail to a Man Accused of Committing Unnatural Acts with Cow, Said that there is no Criminal History Depicting Pervert Mind [READ ORDER] Himachal Pradesh High Court Grant Bail to a Man Accused of Committing Unnatural Acts with Cow, Said that there is no Criminal History Depicting Pervert Mind [READ ORDER]

without commenting on the merits of the case at this stage of investigation and the period of detention he faced in jail, the Court after analyzing all things allowed bail to the accused person ( Jai Ram). Himachal Pradesh High Court, Grant Bail, Justice Anup Chitrakara

How the Waqf Board has the third largest ownership of land after the Indian Railways and the Defense Dept.? How the Waqf Board has the third largest ownership of land after the Indian Railways and the Defense Dept.?

SHO Bhardwaj was quick to defend the Maulvi in questioning regarding the Mazar but harassed the reported who sought truth. Why did the SHO have to harass a Media reporter when he was doing his job? Who benefits from this? Why is there a Mazar on a flyover? Why is a Minority Welfare development Board in control of so much property? || #Mazar #SHOBhardwaj #Mazar #Mosque #WaqfBoard #Islam #News #Waqf #RemoveSHOBharadwaj

Does the Waqf board hold any relevance in the secular India of today? Does the Waqf board hold any relevance in the secular India of today?

Towards the end of the clip, Advocate Jain can be seen questioning the leaders of our land, the Central Government, and the parliament to look into the above and review such biased provisions for the greater good of all.  In the end, we are made to question if India is a secular country in the true sense of the term, after all! Wakf board land scam, Central Waqf Board, secular India article

TRENDING NEWS

need-to-safeguard-judiciary-from-unwarranted-pressures-21-ex-judges-write-letter-to-cji
Trending Legal Insiders
Need to safeguard judiciary from unwarranted pressures: 21 ex-judges write letter to CJI

21 ex-judges write to CJI Chandrachud urging protection of judiciary from pressures undermining its integrity and autonomy.

15 April, 2024 12:17 PM
sc-notice-to-ed-declines-early-date-on-plea-by-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-against-arrest
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to ED; declines early date on plea by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal against arrest

SC issues notice to ED, declines early hearing on Delhi CM Kejriwal's plea against arrest in liquor scam.

15 April, 2024 03:08 PM

TOP STORIES

misleading-advts-case-baba-ramdev-balkrishna-tender-apology
Trending Business
Misleading advts case: Baba Ramdev, Balkrishna tender apology

Baba Ramdev, Balkrishna apologize for misleading ads. SC contempt plea hearing set for April 10. Patanjali assures compliance with court orders.

10 April, 2024 10:44 AM
sc-allows-gangster-turned-politicians-son-to-attend-fatiha
Trending Judiciary
SC allows gangster-turned-politician's son to attend 'Fatiha'

Supreme Court allows jailed MLA Abbas Ansari to attend his father's funeral prayers, granting temporary release under police custody.

10 April, 2024 11:11 AM
each-moveable-property-not-required-to-be-disclosed-by-candidates-in-election-sc
Trending Judiciary
Each moveable property not required to be disclosed by candidates in election: SC [Read Judgment]

SC rules not every movable asset needs disclosure in elections. Privacy rights preserved. Details vary per case. High value assets matter.

10 April, 2024 12:02 PM
delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-moves-supreme-court
Trending Judiciary
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court against dismissal of plea in liquor policy scam case. Lawyers seek early hearing from CJI-led bench.

10 April, 2024 12:39 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email