NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday objected to indications from the seven-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud that it could use the ‘legal positivist’ approach, coupled with social considerations, to decide whether Aligarh Muslim University could regain its ‘minority character’.
A hint of the possible inclination of the bench to move beyond merits of the claim for minority status and adjudicate the matter by taking into account the social context came when it asked government whether minority tag could be restored to AMU in the post-Constitution era even though its Muslim patrons had voluntarily surrendered it to get recognition and grants from the British government in 1920.
CJI Chandrachud said the social context in which the minority character was given up needed to be borne in mind.
Opposing the course of interpretation suggested by the CJI, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Sharma, that during the peak of the independence movement in the 1920s, the nationalists established eminent universities without seeking statutory support from the then government, but the patrons of AMU, who professed loyalty to the British, preferred the imperial government’s support.
“The SC should not do something to change historical facts and send a message to those who stood against the British and reward those who crawled before the imperial government,” Mehta said.
The CJI asked, “Will surrendering of denominational status in 1920 cost AMU for all times to come?” The SG said the historical fact was that the patrons, lobbying with the British for establishment of AMU, had voluntarily given up denominational status for the institution. “Had Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which was established and administered by Muslims, continued as such post-Constitution, that institution would have been conferred with minority status,” he said. MAO College is considered the predecessor of AMU.
However, MAO College completely merged with AMU, which was established through a statute that categorically ruled out its denominational status and gave the British government overarching control over AMU administration, Mehta said.
The CJI said, “You must understand that the British government had no desire to give up control over educational institutions as they regarded education as an important source of cultural power. So, can the AMU Act of 1920 be taken as completely destructive of AMU’s claim to get minority status in the post-Constitution era? For the last 103 years, successive governments, since the British period, have appointed Muslims as vice-chancellors. Is that not an indication of the institution’s character?”
The SG replied, “A de facto situation cannot alter the de jure mandate. The AMU Act says the VC need not be from Muslim community. So, appointment of Muslims as VCs would not alter the legal position. If Muslim VCs were appointed as VCs of Banaras Hindu University, would it become a minority institution?”
Arguments will resume on Tuesday.
A hint of the possible inclination of the bench to move beyond merits of the claim for minority status and adjudicate the matter by taking into account the social context came when it asked government whether minority tag could be restored to AMU in the post-Constitution era even though its Muslim patrons had voluntarily surrendered it to get recognition and grants from the British government in 1920.
CJI Chandrachud said the social context in which the minority character was given up needed to be borne in mind.
Opposing the course of interpretation suggested by the CJI, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Sharma, that during the peak of the independence movement in the 1920s, the nationalists established eminent universities without seeking statutory support from the then government, but the patrons of AMU, who professed loyalty to the British, preferred the imperial government’s support.
“The SC should not do something to change historical facts and send a message to those who stood against the British and reward those who crawled before the imperial government,” Mehta said.
The CJI asked, “Will surrendering of denominational status in 1920 cost AMU for all times to come?” The SG said the historical fact was that the patrons, lobbying with the British for establishment of AMU, had voluntarily given up denominational status for the institution. “Had Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which was established and administered by Muslims, continued as such post-Constitution, that institution would have been conferred with minority status,” he said. MAO College is considered the predecessor of AMU.
However, MAO College completely merged with AMU, which was established through a statute that categorically ruled out its denominational status and gave the British government overarching control over AMU administration, Mehta said.
The CJI said, “You must understand that the British government had no desire to give up control over educational institutions as they regarded education as an important source of cultural power. So, can the AMU Act of 1920 be taken as completely destructive of AMU’s claim to get minority status in the post-Constitution era? For the last 103 years, successive governments, since the British period, have appointed Muslims as vice-chancellors. Is that not an indication of the institution’s character?”
The SG replied, “A de facto situation cannot alter the de jure mandate. The AMU Act says the VC need not be from Muslim community. So, appointment of Muslims as VCs would not alter the legal position. If Muslim VCs were appointed as VCs of Banaras Hindu University, would it become a minority institution?”
Arguments will resume on Tuesday.
