Clearing ambiguities

The question whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) qualifies as a Minority Educational Institution (MEI) has for long been a contentious issue. It has been a debate characterised by profound historical, legal, and cultural intricacies. As things stand today, the question will likely linger for some more time as the apex court has set aside the onus of final decision with a smaller, regular bench. However, on a positive note, the ruling by the seven-judge bench has outlined a ‘realistic’ criteria for determining an institution's minority character, which, some believe, will push AMU closer to securing MEI status.

It may be noted that AMU’s claim to minority status rests on its origins and purpose. Founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875 to advance the educational needs of India’s Muslim community, AMU was recognised as a university in 1920 through an Act of the Central Legislature. Over the years, however, its minority status has been challenged. The 1967 Supreme Court judgment in S Azeez Basha v Union of India declared AMU ineligible for MEI status, as it was established by legislation, not directly by the Muslim community. An amendment in 1981 attempted to reassert its minority roots, but a 2006 Allahabad High Court ruling overturned this, denying AMU the status once again. The new Supreme Court ruling, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, provides a two-fold test to assess an institution's minority character—its establishment and administration. For the establishment criteria, the Court advised examining who spearheaded the institution, the funding sources, and the institution's original purpose. AMU’s foundation as a college for Muslim students fits this criteria, despite later recognition through a legislative act. Additionally, the Court held that government support does not negate an institution’s minority character; secular education and inclusive admissions policies do not necessarily alter its foundational identity. The decision, no doubt, acknowledges AMU’s unique origins without forcing it into a rigid framework. Chief Justice Chandrachud argued that the creation of a university through legislation, which happened to be a requirement before 1956, doesn’t erase its minority character if it aligns with community-driven aims.

On the contrary, dissenting voices, particularly that of Justice Dipankar Datta, argue that a public institution like AMU may not need a minority designation, given its national standing and societal contributions. The implications of the verdict are significant. MEI status allows AMU to reserve seats for Muslim students, and exempt the university from caste-based reservation requirements under Article 15(5). Without the MEI status, AMU could fall under broader reservation mandates, which would affect admissions. It won’t be wrong to say that the Court's decision highlights the importance of cultural preservation while also raising questions about inclusivity within national institutions.

The verdict in the case points toward a calculated balance. It prompts a question: can AMU honour its founding vision for the Muslim community while remaining inclusive as a public institution? The forthcoming decision from the smaller bench will be keenly awaited as it will impact not only AMU but also set a precedent for minority rights and education policy in India. The verdict has, as anticipated, created a political rift in the state of Uttar Pradesh, with none other than the chief minister of the state coming out in open to oppose the MEI status. However intertwined education and politics may seem, they must progress separately.