A 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has delivered its verdict on the contentious issue whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is a minority institution or not.
One question was when the university was established by a law of Parliament, which in 1920 passed the AMU Act, with which the university came into existence; therefore, it cannot be called a minority institution. In this respect the verdict has declared clearly that in the light of the facts available and presented before the court, the fact of passing the law does not deprive the university of its minority status. Because what the Parliament has done is just the ratification of the fact that the objective of the establishment of the MAO (Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental) College was giving modern education to coming generations of the Muslim community.
There was an objection that the AMU has been declared an Institution of National Importance; how it can be declared a minority institution. The current verdict explains that a minority institution also can be an Institution of National Importance, as there is no contradiction in an institution being at the same time a minority institution and an institution of national importance. In this way, the SC verdict is satisfactory for the Muslims who have fought the long legal battle for the restoration of the minority character of AMU.
At the same time the verdict stipulates that even in the case of an institution created by a minority the government has got the power under law and the Constitution to regulate it. So is the position of AMU. There is no need to doubt the integrity and ability of the seven honourable judges. They are respected and know well the nuances, complexities, and finer points of law. They have delivered the verdict to the best of their understanding and ability. Therefore, the Muslims have welcomed the verdict with hope and appreciation.
There are some people, including political analysts, journalists and others, who, in their articles and debates, have openly said that there might have been government pressure in a way or the other. This is quite possible. But we have greater trust in the sagacity and integrity of the judges then in the pressure and machination of the politicians. Therefore, the Muslims have welcomed the verdict with open minds.
The present verdict by the 7-judge bench (4 v 3) has rejected the Aziz Basha verdict of 1967 which had said that AMU was not a minority institution. It is welcome and in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the Muslims.
Now this verdict has to be sent to the 3-judge regular bench which would be constituted by the new Chief Justice. Then it will specify how and to which extent it will enable AMU to function as a Muslim minority university. Let us keep the doors of hope open and pray for a country which is free from prejudice and is respectful of rights of all citizens and of the minorities, weaker sections and particularly Muslims who are under constant threat and duress, and who are victims of prejudice, hate and discrimination.
As we know, our politicians are the most selfish timeservers. Their attitude shows that they are ready to do worst crimes. Even if the judiciary is fair and broadminded, some politicians can do and go any extent. Therefore, we on the one hand be ready to fight them with the cooperation of likeminded people. Remember that there is no dearth of such people. At the same time, we should gird up our loins and continue our struggle for freeing the country from the grip of communalists, fascists and manipulators.