The long-standing debate over Aligarh Muslim University’s (AMU) minority status was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of India, marking a significant legal breakthrough. The Central government had said before the Supreme Court that AMU could not be classified as a university linked with any specific religion or denomination. Any institution deemed to be of national importance, according to the government, was not eligible to claim minority status.
The legal entanglement regarding AMU’s minority status has persisted for decades. In response to this, the Supreme Court, represented by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and Satish Sharma, reiterated the fundamental right of religious and linguistic minority communities under Article 30 of the Constitution. The court emphasised that this right to establish and administer educational institutions could not be subordinate to laws governing degrees, infrastructure and faculty regulations, and government assistance, reported Times Of India.
Also Read| Aligarh Muslim University Can’t Be Minority Institution, Centre Tells Supreme Court
Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that Article 30 was an enabling article, emphasising that the legal competence or power conferred was a necessary condition for the founding of an educational institution of a particular type. A significant issue was brought up by Chief Justice Chandrachud, who pointed out that the right granted by Article 30 appeared to be dependent on the terms of a Parliament-enacted statute. “Mere establishment of an institution by legislature-enacted law would not take away its ‘minority’ character,” the CJI emphasised.
The bench went on to say that no community in the present day, including minorities, could create an institution without abiding by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act or other pertinent regulations. The court acknowledged the harsh realities of funding, pointing out that only a few institutions could survive without government aid and that obtaining subsidies did not in any way affect an institution’s denominational identity.
In response to the court’s observations, Venkataramani made it clear that he didn’t want to imply that laws passed by Parliament superseded Article 30 rights. In order to ensure that the choice aspect under Article 30 remains unrestricted within the legal framework, he emphasised that the authority to establish a particular class of institutions must be traced to an enabling statute. This legal discourse marks a crucial chapter in the complex narrative surrounding AMU’s minority status.
Comments
0 comment