Advertisement

Updated January 24th, 2024 at 22:25 IST

Explained: The Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status Case

It was observed that the 1981 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, effectively accorded minority status to the institution.

Digital Desk
CJI Chandrachud
CJI DY Chandrachud | Image:PTI/File
Advertisement

New Delhi: Expressing surprise over the central government’s stand that the Centre doesn’t accept the 1981 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, the Supreme Court (SC) said the government has to stand by what Parliament has done. It was observed that the 1981 amendment to the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act, effectively accorded minority status to the institution.

The SC observed that education is a very important source of cultural power and it cannot be said that a pre-Constitution institution is not entitled to claim rights under Article 30, which deals with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

Advertisement

On Wednesday, a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while hearing arguments on the vexed question of the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University, observed Parliament as an eternal, indestructible body under the Indian Union.

CJI-led seven-judge constitution bench starts hearing arguments

The bench also observed that any institution which fulfills the requirements of Article 30 is entitled to claim the right irrespective of whether it has been established prior to the adoption of the Constitution or after that.

CJI DY Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was arguing for the Centre, saying, “How can you not accept an amendment by Parliament?"

Advertisement

"Mr Solicitor, Parliament is an eternal, indestructible body under the Indian Union, and irrespective of which government represents the cause of the Union of India, Parliament's cause is eternal, indivisible and indestructible and we can't hear the Government of India say that amendment which the Parliament made is something I don't stand by. You have to stand by it," the CJI observed.

The bench, which also comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, said the government has the option of taking the amendment route and amend the law again.

Advertisement

"This is an amendment by the Parliament. Is the government accepting the amendment?" Justice Khanna asked pointing at the 1981 amendment. Responding to it, the solicitor general said, "I am not."

The law officer said he was not arguing a matter of "A versus B" and that he was before a seven-judge constitution bench answering constitutional questions.

Advertisement

"The amendment in question was subjected to challenge before the Allahabad high court and there is a judgement declaring that it is unconstitutional for A, B, C, D grounds, and as a law officer, it is my right as well as my entitlement and duty to say that this view appears to be correct," Mehta asserted.

Allahabad HC had struck down provision of AMU (Amendment) Act in 2006

In January 2006, the Allahabad High Court had struck down the provision of the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981 by which the varsity was accorded minority status.

The CJI said this would be radical because a law officer would be then telling the court that ‘I don't abide by what Parliament has done’.

Advertisement

"You have to stand by what Parliament has done. Parliament is supreme. Parliament is undoubtedly supreme in its law making function. Parliament can always amend a statute, in which case a law officer can say I have an amended statute," Justice Chandrachud observed.

"Can we hear any organ of the Union government say that notwithstanding a parliamentary amendment, I don't accept this amendment," the CJI said, adding Parliament is an eternal, indivisible and indestructible entity under democracy.

Advertisement

Mehta said he was supporting the 2006 high court verdict. "How can you say I don't accept the validity of an amendment?" the bench asked him.

Responding to the query, the solicitor general said, "Would a law officer be expected to say that whatever amendments were made in the Constitution of India during Emergency were true only because they were made by the Parliament".

Advertisement

Why was the 44th amendment Act brought?

The CJI observed that is why the 44th amendment Act, 1978 came in.

Advertisement

"The 44th amendment came in only for that. The 44th amendment came to redress the evils which were perpetrated in the name of a constitutional amendment," he said, adding, "The power to decide that is in the elected body of the people which is Parliament. Parliament can always say that what we did during the Emergency was wrong and we are rectifying it by the 44th amendment".

The 44th Amendment Act was brought in by the Janata Party government against the background of Emergency.

Advertisement

It proposed certain changes to the Constitution that would have the effect of undermining its secular or democratic character, abridging or taking away fundamental rights, and prejudicing or impeding free and fair elections on the basis of adult suffrage.

It said the right to property, which has been the subject of several constitutional amendments, would cease to be a fundamental right and become just a legal right. The elimination of property from the list of fundamental rights would, however, ensure that minorities’ freedom to create and govern educational institutions of their choosing would not be harmed, the 44th amendment said.

Advertisement

Mehta referred to the high court verdict and said the 1981 Amendment Act was set aside and therefore, it was not in the statute book now.

"There is an affidavit filed by the government. It's not my stand," he said.

Advertisement

5-judge constitution bench decision of 1967

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the parties in favour of AMU's minority status, referred to how the then attorney general had defended the Emergency provision.

Advertisement

"I was sitting in the court when the then Attorney General of India Niren De was standing here and arguing what is being done is right. I (attorney general) defend the Emergency provision. Why? Because he could not say otherwise," Sibal said.

Mehta said the distinction is that the then attorney general was not in a situation where one high court had struck it (1981 amendment) down and the provision no longer exists in the statute book.

Advertisement

The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and would resume on January 30.

The top court had on February 12, 2019 referred to a seven-judge bench the hugely contentious issue for adjudication. A similar reference was made earlier.

Advertisement

A five-judge constitution bench in the S Azeez Basha versus Union of India case in 1967 held that since AMU was a central university, it cannot be considered a minority institution.

However, it got back its minority status when Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981.

Advertisement

The Congress-led UPA government at the Centre moved in appeal against the 2006 high court order. The university also filed a separate petition against it.

The NDA government spearheaded by the BJP told the apex court in 2016 that it will withdraw the appeal filed by the erstwhile UPA dispensation.
 

Advertisement

Published January 24th, 2024 at 21:52 IST

Your Voice. Now Direct.

Send us your views, we’ll publish them. This section is moderated.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Whatsapp logo