As the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on AMU minority case, the only question left in the minds of the people is, “Will Supreme Court vindicate AMU minority status or go the Babri way?”
Former Chief Justice of India, A.M. Ahmadi, in reply to my question after a program at the Indian Law Institute on 27 February 2016, “Do you think AMU minority character case will be vindicated by Judiciary,” he said, “I am optimistic.” But are we that optimistic today or are we on a shaky wicket like never before?
It’s for the judiciary to introspect for the perception it has created of obvious judgment in cases related to minorities, of course with some exceptions.
Former Lt.-Gov. and VC of Jamia Millia Islamia Najeeb Jung at a program in Delhi said Jamia is an example of affirmative action because it allows 50%of non-minority aspirants to study there but efforts are on to annul the minority rights of Jamia and AMU.
On the issue of AMU minority status, the SC, while reserving the verdict, said 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which effectively accorded it a minority status, only did a “half-hearted job” and didn’t restore to the institution the position it had before 1951.
“One thing which is worrying us is that the 1981 amendment does not restore the position as it stood prior to 1951. In other words, the 1981 amendment does a half-hearted job,” Justice Chandrachud said while proceeding to close the arguments.
Appearing for AMU Old Boys’ Association during the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal asserted, “Article 30 gives me a right to administer. It does not say that the administration must be in my hands or in Muslim hands or Christian hands. That is not the meaning of Article 30. Right to administer of my choice, I have a choice…”
In 1967, in S Azeez Basha v Union of India, the SC held that AMU was “established” through the enactment of a law, the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. This meant, according to the court, that AMU does not qualify for minority status as it was not established by the Muslim community.
According to Amir Ali, Assistant Professor, Center for Political Studies, JNU, “The AMU minority character case is likely to become another barometer of the pressure being exerted by current dispensation against provisions for minority rights. So it will be looked at in continuation with the Ayodhya and 370 judgments. Further, it will have huge implications for the manner in which Indian Muslims have defined themselves in India. AMU and its minority character is one among the central issues that has rather narrowly defined Indian Muslim identity.”
“While AMU and other issues like the Urdu language have, as mentioned, narrowly and very symbolically defined Indian Muslim identity to its own detriment, the AMU judgment is concerning as it may result in the removal of the possibility of Muslims as a whole, creating an identity and definition of themselves by themselves,” added Ali.
“The basis of AMU’s minority character lies in Articles 29 and 30 of the constitution that directs the protection and preservation of interests of minorities to preserve their language, script, and culture. Also, minorities under Article 30 have a right to establish and administer their educational institutions. Under these provisions, AMU has a right to uphold a 50% reservation specifically for Muslims,” said Dr.Maskoor Ahmad Usmani, former President, AMU Students Union
“It’s a well-stated fact that Muslims (majorly) contributed toits establishment as a university in 1920 and have been the pioneers in its establishment and administration. Fundamental rights are inalienable and hence, I believe that AMU must be declared a minority institution,” said Usmani.
“If the verdict goes against it, the Muslim community will bear another brunt in the history,”he added.