The Union government has apprised the Supreme Court that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had surrendered its denominational character at the time of its establishment by an Act of the British Parliament in 1920 and hence, it could not claim the minority status now.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre on Tuesday, argued that AMU chose to surrender its minority status when it bowed down to the British legislation establishing the institution under the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920.
SG Mehta made the arguments before a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, which was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the minority status of AMU.
The SG pointed out that communications between the British officers and MAO College showed that from the very inception, the Imperial Government was clear that the demand for establishing a University by way of an enactment would only be accepted if the control substantially vested with secular or non-minority authorities.
On the fourth day of hearing, the Apex Court asked SG Mehta about the status of AMU under the 1920 legislation and on the eve of adoption of the Constitution.
The mere fact that Aligarh Muslim University was given university status did not amount to a surrender of minority status or denominational status prior to Independence, noted the Constitution Bench, adding that it had to independently see whether by the 1920 Act, AMU’s denominational character was lost.
Earlier on Monday, the Apex Court had observed that the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot be decided today on the basis of political alignment of AMU founders during the British Raj, noting that the same will not have any bearing on the case.
The Constitution Bench observed that the founders could have aligned with either Mahatma Gandhi or Khilafat, but the same will not have any bearing on the minority status of the institute.
The Apex Court made such observations after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, submitted that every historian has described the founders of AMU as loyal to the British.
The CJI said that assuming there were two factions (of the founders). While the loyalists supported Mahatma Gandhi, those in Khilafat movement branched out to form Jamia Millia Islamia. Their loyalty did not mean the institute’s minority character changed or that the same had a bearing depending on whether they were aligned to or opposed to the then executive.
Responding to the arguments made by Advocate MR Shamshad (for the petitioners), the CJI said that a minority institute can say that it has the choice to establish a school but it cannot say that it has to be recognised when it comes to conferring degrees without an enabling statute or legal regime.
A person need not have to give up the minority status if he/she sought aid and this was fairly well established, noted the top court of the country.