{"id":171341,"date":"2024-11-09T06:22:38","date_gmt":"2024-11-09T06:22:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/11\/09\/amu-a-minority-institution-or-not-sc-reverses-old-order-but-heres-all-about-the-half-a-century-year-old-saga\/"},"modified":"2024-11-09T06:22:38","modified_gmt":"2024-11-09T06:22:38","slug":"amu-a-minority-institution-or-not-sc-reverses-old-order-but-heres-all-about-the-half-a-century-year-old-saga","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/11\/09\/amu-a-minority-institution-or-not-sc-reverses-old-order-but-heres-all-about-the-half-a-century-year-old-saga\/","title":{"rendered":"AMU a minority institution or not? SC reverses old order but… Here’s all about the half-a-century-year-old saga"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"AMU<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision on Friday, overturned its 1967 ruling, which had previously denied minority status to the Aligarh Muslim University<\/a> (AMU). The latest judgment determined that AMU could potentially qualify as a minority institution, yet the final determination on its minority status was deferred to a three-judge bench, which will consider the matter under newly evolved principles.<\/p>\n

Background of the 1967 Azeez Basha ruling
<\/h2>\n

In the 1967 Azeez Basha case<\/a>, the Supreme Court ruled that AMU, established by a central legislative act, could not claim minority status. This decision hinged on the argument that AMU was created by statute, not solely by a minority community. However, Friday\u2019s majority judgment, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, reconsidered the interpretation, asserting that an institution does not lose its minority status merely due to its establishment through legislation. Instead, the Court emphasized the importance of examining who was fundamentally behind the establishment of the institution and whether it aligns with the provisions of Article 30, which protects minority educational institutions.<\/p>\n

Chief Justice and majority opinion
<\/h2>\n

Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, and JB Pardiwala led the majority opinion, which stressed that the question of minority status requires an inquiry into the founders of the institution. According to the Court, \u201cIf that inquiry is pointing towards a minority community, then the institution can claim minority status as per Article 30.\u201d The bench has delegated this detailed review to a smaller bench, which will analyze the facts and make a final determination.<\/p>\n

Constitution Bench composition and hearing details<\/h2>\n

The ruling was made by a Constitution Bench consisting of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, and SC Sharma. The matter initially arose from a 2006 judgment by the Allahabad High Court, which had ruled against AMU\u2019s minority status.<\/p>\n

Long-standing dispute over AMU\u2019s status<\/h2>\n

The minority status of AMU has been under debate for over fifty years. In the original 1967 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution because it was established by the central legislature under the AMU Act of 1920. The ruling followed amendments to AMU\u2019s founding Act in 1951 and 1965, which adjusted its governance structure, including allowing non-Muslims in its governing body and designating the President of India as the university’s Visitor.

Following criticism, the government amended the AMU Act in 1981, stating that the university had been set up by the Muslim community to advance Muslim cultural and educational objectives. However, in 2006, the Allahabad High Court invalidated this amendment and struck down a 50% reservation for Muslims in postgraduate medical programs introduced by AMU in 2005, citing the 1967 Supreme Court ruling.<\/p>\n

What’s Minority Status<\/h2>\n

Implications of minority status under the Constitution Article 15(5) of the Constitution, amended in 2006, exempts minority institutions from reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Currently, AMU does not have SC\/ST quotas, as the Supreme Court had maintained status quo while the matter was under consideration. Should AMU be formally recognized as a minority institution, the Centre noted that AMU \u201cwill continue not to provide for reservation for SCs\/STs\/OBCs\/EWS [Economically Weaker Sections], [in jobs and seats, but] it will provide for reservation for Muslims which can be up to 50 per cent or even more.\u201d<\/p>\n

Centre\u2019s position on AMU\u2019s minority status
<\/h2>\n

During the hearing, the Centre argued against AMU\u2019s minority designation, cautioning that such a status could impact the university\u2019s secular mission and alignment with national interests. According to the Centre, recognizing AMU as a minority institution would alter its current administrative setup and admission procedures, potentially isolating it from other national institutions. The Centre\u2019s stance emphasized that AMU, as a national institution, \u201cought to maintain its secular origins and serve the larger interest of the nation first.\u201d<\/p>\n

What’s Next <\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s recent judgment allows for the minority status issue to be revisited by a three-judge bench. This bench will examine the founding details and determine whether AMU\u2019s establishment meets the requirements for minority status as per Article 30, setting the stage for a potentially transformative decision in the history of Indian education.
<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision on Friday, overturned its 1967 ruling, which had previously denied minority status to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The latest judgment determined that AMU could potentially qualify as a minority institution, yet the final determination on its minority status was deferred to a three-judge bench, which will consider […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":171342,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-115074096,imgsize-37224.cms","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[602],"tags":[36591,132853,44390,133326,133328,132575,133325,133327,132577,4340,133329,671,69090,16745,5689,12682,5666],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171341"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171341"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171341\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":171343,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171341\/revisions\/171343"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/171342"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}