What does M in AMU stand for?

The stand taken recently by the Central government on the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has prompted me to express my views as well. The constitution of India embodied special rights to both linguistic and religious minorities “to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30.

The Supreme Court has time and again, in numerous judgments, ruled in favour of minorities’ institutions. The Kerala Education Bill case, Ahmedabad St Xaviers College v State of Gujarat, State of Kerala v Mother Provincial, TMA Pai case, St Xavier’s College case constitute a long list.

The Supreme Court in Guru Nanak University case (D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737) rejected the contention of the state of Punjab that a religious or linguistic minority should be a minority in relation to the entire population of India. The court ruled that a minority has to be determined, in relation to the particular legislation which is sought to be impugned. If it is a state law, the minorities have to be determined in relation to the state population. The Hindus in Punjab constitute a religious minority. Therefore, Arya Samajistis in Punjab also constitute a religious minority. The Supreme Court didn’t rule that minorities have no right to establish a university rather the contention was that Arya Samaj community is a minority community. Owing to the same reason the educational institutions in Kerala run by minority communities (based on whole country’s population) do not enjoy the minority status.

Muslims are the most deprived amongst all minorities, their literacy rate is lowest and poverty rate is highest leading to deprivation of jobs. In urban areas, 60% of the Muslims have never gone to schools as against the national average of 20%. Only 5% of Muslim women have completed high school education and the income of the average Muslim is 11% less than the national average.

An essential facet of Article 30(1) is to provide safeguard by incorporating special privileges to religious and lingual minorities. But the real question is this safeguard sufficient until Muslims are educated through a special derive as government is doing for SCs/STs? Now if minorities can’t establish universities than the entire claims of safeguard of educational and cultural rights of minorities are farcical.

The Supreme Court in the St Xavier’s College case has rightly pointed out that, “The whole object of conferring the right on the minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection they will be denied equality.”

THE SUPREME COURT HAS TIME AND AGAIN, IN NUMEROUS JUDGMENTS, RULED IN FAVOUR OF MINORITIES’ INSTITUTIONS.

The views expressed by union government amounts to argument for reverse discrimination and the same is endorsed by the Supreme Court which, in the TMA Pai case, said that “The essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions” (T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1994 SC 13).

The status of development of countries is not the economic and military strength, rather it is their treatment of the minorities which counts a lot and any change in the opinion of the union government is regressive for this great country, which explicitly recognises the rights of ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Referring to the Aligarh Muslim University case (S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662), H.M. Seervai remarked that “This is the first case in which the Supreme Court has departed from the broad spirit in which it had decided cases on cultural and educational rights of minorities which was reflected in the words of Das C. J.”. The “first case” was followed by not a few in which the court whittled down Article 30. In the AMU case, it ruled, incredibly, that “the university was not established by Muslims”.

In one of my articles, I expressed that the denial of the historical reality of AMU as a minority institution by Azeez Basha case is the same as denial of credit of the Independence of this great country to our freedom fighters on the pretext that independent India was brought into existence by the Indian Independence Act passed on July 18, 1947 and the real heroes were the then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Lord Mountbatten.

The case is now again under the consideration of a threejudge bench of the Supreme Court and now a judicious view in favour of minorities is expected. The reason of our faith is in the liberal and unbiased interpretation of minorities’ related provision by the Supreme Court.