Government shifts stand, against minority tag for Aligarh Muslim University

NEW DELHI: Unperturbed by the ‘intolerance’ charge flung at it prior to Bihar elections, the BJP-led NDA government appeared to ruffle fresh feathers by taking a stand in the Supreme Court on Monday that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) could not be categorized as a ‘minority’ institution.
READ ALSO:Minority status matter of life and death, says AMU VC
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told a bench of Justices J S Khehar, M Y Eqbal and C Nagappan, “It is the stand of the Union of India that AMU is not a minority university. As the executive government at the Centre, we can’t be seen as setting up a minority institution in a secular state.”
AMU Act was enacted in 1920 dissolving and incorporating Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College.Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1951 and it did away with compulsory instruction in Muslim theology. The amendment opened membership of the Court of AMU to non-Muslims.
Radical changes were introduced by the 1966 amendment to AMU Act, which was challenged before the Supreme Court by S Azeez Basha. The SC dismissed the petition in 1967 holding that AMU was not a minority institution because it had been established by an Act of Parliament and had not been set up by Muslims.
Another amendment to AMU Act in 1972 made the academic and executive councils more democratic and drastically reduced the nominees of the Visitor. In a further amendment in 1981, Parliament allowed AMU to “promote, especially the educational and cultural advancement of Muslims in India”, permitting the institution to get back its minority tag as it attempted to remove the basis of the SC’s 1967 judgment.
In 2004, AMU reserved 50% seats in PG medical course for Muslims. This was challenged in Allahabad High Court, which in 2005 and 2006 held that the SC decision in Azeez Basha case continued to hold good and said the reservation for Muslims was unconstitutional. The Centre and AMU filed appeals against the HC verdict in 2006 citing the 1981 amendment to claim minority status, arguing that it allowed the institution to carve out reservation for Muslims.
Rohatgi said though the Centre had filed an appeal, it was now inclined to withdraw it as it felt that the Azeez Basha judgment still held good and that AMU could not be termed a minority institution since it was set up under an Act of Parliament.
The AG’s stand drew immediate reaction from Justice Eqbal, who asked, “Is the change of stand because of change in the government at the Centre?”
Rohatgi said, “The previous stand was wrong. The law laid down in Azeez Basha case by a five-judge bench of the SC on October 20, 1967 still holds good. It had ruled that AMU was not a minority institution. As per the Centre, this judgment still holds the field. Now, it is for the university whether it adopts a contrary view.” The bench asked the Centre to file an affidavit on this and posted the case for hearing on April 4.
Appearing for AMU, senior advocate P P Rao echoed the court’s concern by arguing that an executive government could not term an Act passed by Parliament as bad. He said AMU continued to be a minority institution and requested the court to refer the Azeez Basha decision to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Rohatgi said the Centre’s stand had nothing to do with the change in government. “So long as the law is bad, it must be held to be so,” he said.