CJI’s last working day: Is AMU a minority institution? 7-judge bench to rule tomorrow

Without number status, AMU volition person to statesman implementing preservation policies for some teachers and students successful a akin mode arsenic different nationalist universities. If this presumption is granted, the assemblage tin supply up to 50% preservation for Muslim students. Currently, AMU does not travel immoderate preservation policies of the state. However, it does person an interior preservation policy, wherever 50% of seats are reserved for students who person studied successful its affiliated schools oregon colleges.

The bench, which besides includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna (the incoming CJI), Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and S C Sharma, heard arguments implicit the people of 8 days betwixt January 10 and February 1 this year.

This contented was decided erstwhile earlier by the Supreme Court. In 1967, successful the lawsuit of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that AMU was not a number institution. It referred to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, which established the assemblage and held that AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim assemblage – a request for number acquisition institutions nether Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

An amendment to the AMU Act successful 1981 stated that the assemblage had been “established by the Muslims of India”. In 2005, the university, claiming number status, reserved 50% of seats successful postgraduate aesculapian courses for Muslim students.

The Allahabad High Court struck down the preservation argumentation and the 1981 amendment, holding that AMU was not a number institution. This verdict was challenged successful the Supreme Court, and successful 2019 the lawsuit was referred to a seven-judge seat to determine if the verdict successful S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India required reconsideration.

The Centre, which withdrew from the entreaty successful 2016 and is present arguing against AMU’s number status, stated that AMU ne'er possessed number status. It said that erstwhile AMU was established successful 1920 nether an imperial legislation, it relinquished its spiritual presumption and has not been administered by the Muslim number ever since.

The Centre besides stated that S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India was a lawsuit circumstantial determination and volition not person immoderate bearing connected the number presumption of different institutions.

The petitioners, connected the different hand, person argued that it does not substance who is successful complaint of the university’s administration, and that Article 30 (1) gives minorities the close to take who is successful complaint of medication without affecting the number presumption of the instauration successful question.

They besides argued that the court’s determination successful S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India was contradictory arsenic the tribunal had held that for assemblage degrees to beryllium valid, the assemblage would person to beryllium recognised by a statute (such arsenic the AMU Act). However, the tribunal besides held that designation by a statute would portion AMU of its number status. Accepting this determination would interaction the number presumption of different number institutions established nether a law.