New Delhi: Union government told Supreme Court on Tuesday that Muslims who lobbied with the British government for establishment of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) had voluntarily surrendered its denominational character, and acceded to overarching government control over its administration in 1920, as the aim and intent behind AMU was to establish an institution of national importance.
Arguing against reconsideration of the 56-year-old five-judge SC judgment in Azeez Basha case, which had ruled in 1967 that AMU was not a minority institution, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the events preceding establishment of the university by the AMU Act of 1920 showed that the governing society of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College, affiliated to Allahabad University, was dissolved by the 1920 Act and an institution of national importance, on the lines of Banaras Hindu University, was set up.
Surrendered right can’t be resurrected now, says AG
SG Tushar Mehta said patrons of MAO College, historically referred to as British loyalists, faced stiff opposition from within the community for giving up AMU’s denominational character and Muslim control over its administration and formed Jamia Millia Islamia which, unlike AMU, retained its minority status, like St Stephens College, during preand post-Constitution times.
The aim of AMU patrons was to establish a university recognised by the British government to enable students obtaining degrees from the institution to be eligible for employment under the Crown, SG said. “It was wholly open for MAO College to continue as a college, avoid control by the British, and remain a minority institution.
However, the said course was not adopted,” he added.
“Right of administration at the stage of incorporation and establishment of AMU was surrendered by ‘loyalists’ who sought an imperial legislative enactment at the time. The said surrender cannot be resurrected after the Constitution came into being as it was complete at a time when the fundamental right was not in operation,” Mehta said.
SG repeatedly urged SC not to juxtapose the mandate of Article 30 of the Constitution guaranteeing rights of linguistic and religious minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions to the preConstitution days as there was no concept of ‘minority’ institution. He said events leading to the establishment of AMU showed that it was not an institution of denomi national character.
Countering AMU’s argument that the 1920 Act establishing the university was a mere mechanism to get its degrees recognised and had no bearing on its minority character, the SG said, “AMU owed its existence to the 1920 Act, which was the fountainhead of its powers. The British government had overarching control over its administration.”
He said the non-denominational character of AMU was evident in the correspondence between MAO College society and government and the debates in the imperial parliament relating to surrendering of denominational character while the 1920 Act itself robbed AMU of any minority control over its administration. Arguments will continue on Wednesday.
‘If universities can exist for tribals or women, why not for Muslims?’
During spirited arguments from AMU which sought reconsideration of Supreme Court’s Azeez Basha judgment of 1967 declaring it to be a non-minority institution, attorney general R Venkataramani provided a brief light moment, while defending the 67-year-old ruling, by inadvertently referring to the judgment as ‘Ashish Basha’, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
This conversion of ‘Azeez’ into ‘Ashish’ by the AG escaped the attention of mercurial senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who representing AMU was seen repeatedly interrupting solicitor general Tushar Mehta. When Dhavan was arguing for AMU, interruptions by Mehta used to invite the former’s wrath. Dhavan’s pet dialogue was “the new practice in SC is to interrupt a lawyer even during proceedings before a seven-judge constitution bench”.
Arguing for AMU’s minority status, advocate M R Shamshad said the Basha judgment adopted an exclusionary approach and denied minority status to AMU just because it agreed for government recognition of its degrees through the AMU Act, 1920, and received financial aid from government.
“Even in context of a university, governments have established universities for different groups like tribals, women, depressed and backward classes etc. If that is so, why not a university for Muslims?” he asked.
The AG explained the meaning of ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ in context of the right conferred on minority communities relating to ‘choice’ of educational institutions.
“Unfettered freedom to establish educational institutions ‘of their choice’ does not extend to the grant of exemption from the obligation to abide by other constitutional demands and requirements, for example, the obligation to honour provisions relating to reservations, or matters relating to regulations of appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff and including general regulations relating to standards and quality of education,” Venkataramani said.
“The choice aspect of institutions does not exempt the minority from constitutionally sanctioned regulations or constitutional prescriptions which are themselves as important as the choice. As long as the state does not impinge on the choice and which the state cannot, Article 30 is intact,” he added.
“After coming into force of the Constitution, a minority community can claim protection under Article 30, it must first have legal competence to establish a particular class of institutions,” the AG said.
During spirited arguments from AMU which sought reconsideration of Supreme Court’s Azeez Basha judgment of 1967 declaring it to be a non-minority institution, attorney general R Venkataramani provided a brief light moment, while defending the 67-year-old ruling, by inadvertently referring to the judgment as ‘Ashish Basha’, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
This conversion of ‘Azeez’ into ‘Ashish’ by the AG escaped the attention of mercurial senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who representing AMU was seen repeatedly interrupting solicitor general Tushar Mehta. When Dhavan was arguing for AMU, interruptions by Mehta used to invite the former’s wrath. Dhavan’s pet dialogue was “the new practice in SC is to interrupt a lawyer even during proceedings before a seven-judge constitution bench”.
Arguing for AMU’s minority status, advocate M R Shamshad said the Basha judgment adopted an exclusionary approach and denied minority status to AMU just because it agreed for government recognition of its degrees through the AMU Act, 1920, and received financial aid from government.
“Even in context of a university, governments have established universities for different groups like tribals, women, depressed and backward classes etc. If that is so, why not a university for Muslims?” he asked.
The AG explained the meaning of ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ in context of the right conferred on minority communities relating to ‘choice’ of educational institutions.
“Unfettered freedom to establish educational institutions ‘of their choice’ does not extend to the grant of exemption from the obligation to abide by other constitutional demands and requirements, for example, the obligation to honour provisions relating to reservations, or matters relating to regulations of appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff and including general regulations relating to standards and quality of education,” Venkataramani said.
“The choice aspect of institutions does not exempt the minority from constitutionally sanctioned regulations or constitutional prescriptions which are themselves as important as the choice. As long as the state does not impinge on the choice and which the state cannot, Article 30 is intact,” he added.
“After coming into force of the Constitution, a minority community can claim protection under Article 30, it must first have legal competence to establish a particular class of institutions,” the AG said.
Arguing against reconsideration of the 56-year-old five-judge SC judgment in Azeez Basha case, which had ruled in 1967 that AMU was not a minority institution, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the events preceding establishment of the university by the AMU Act of 1920 showed that the governing society of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College, affiliated to Allahabad University, was dissolved by the 1920 Act and an institution of national importance, on the lines of Banaras Hindu University, was set up.
Surrendered right can’t be resurrected now, says AG
SG Tushar Mehta said patrons of MAO College, historically referred to as British loyalists, faced stiff opposition from within the community for giving up AMU’s denominational character and Muslim control over its administration and formed Jamia Millia Islamia which, unlike AMU, retained its minority status, like St Stephens College, during preand post-Constitution times.
The aim of AMU patrons was to establish a university recognised by the British government to enable students obtaining degrees from the institution to be eligible for employment under the Crown, SG said. “It was wholly open for MAO College to continue as a college, avoid control by the British, and remain a minority institution.
However, the said course was not adopted,” he added.
“Right of administration at the stage of incorporation and establishment of AMU was surrendered by ‘loyalists’ who sought an imperial legislative enactment at the time. The said surrender cannot be resurrected after the Constitution came into being as it was complete at a time when the fundamental right was not in operation,” Mehta said.
SG repeatedly urged SC not to juxtapose the mandate of Article 30 of the Constitution guaranteeing rights of linguistic and religious minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions to the preConstitution days as there was no concept of ‘minority’ institution. He said events leading to the establishment of AMU showed that it was not an institution of denomi national character.
Countering AMU’s argument that the 1920 Act establishing the university was a mere mechanism to get its degrees recognised and had no bearing on its minority character, the SG said, “AMU owed its existence to the 1920 Act, which was the fountainhead of its powers. The British government had overarching control over its administration.”
He said the non-denominational character of AMU was evident in the correspondence between MAO College society and government and the debates in the imperial parliament relating to surrendering of denominational character while the 1920 Act itself robbed AMU of any minority control over its administration. Arguments will continue on Wednesday.
‘If universities can exist for tribals or women, why not for Muslims?’
During spirited arguments from AMU which sought reconsideration of Supreme Court’s Azeez Basha judgment of 1967 declaring it to be a non-minority institution, attorney general R Venkataramani provided a brief light moment, while defending the 67-year-old ruling, by inadvertently referring to the judgment as ‘Ashish Basha’, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
This conversion of ‘Azeez’ into ‘Ashish’ by the AG escaped the attention of mercurial senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who representing AMU was seen repeatedly interrupting solicitor general Tushar Mehta. When Dhavan was arguing for AMU, interruptions by Mehta used to invite the former’s wrath. Dhavan’s pet dialogue was “the new practice in SC is to interrupt a lawyer even during proceedings before a seven-judge constitution bench”.
Arguing for AMU’s minority status, advocate M R Shamshad said the Basha judgment adopted an exclusionary approach and denied minority status to AMU just because it agreed for government recognition of its degrees through the AMU Act, 1920, and received financial aid from government.
“Even in context of a university, governments have established universities for different groups like tribals, women, depressed and backward classes etc. If that is so, why not a university for Muslims?” he asked.
The AG explained the meaning of ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ in context of the right conferred on minority communities relating to ‘choice’ of educational institutions.
“Unfettered freedom to establish educational institutions ‘of their choice’ does not extend to the grant of exemption from the obligation to abide by other constitutional demands and requirements, for example, the obligation to honour provisions relating to reservations, or matters relating to regulations of appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff and including general regulations relating to standards and quality of education,” Venkataramani said.
“The choice aspect of institutions does not exempt the minority from constitutionally sanctioned regulations or constitutional prescriptions which are themselves as important as the choice. As long as the state does not impinge on the choice and which the state cannot, Article 30 is intact,” he added.
“After coming into force of the Constitution, a minority community can claim protection under Article 30, it must first have legal competence to establish a particular class of institutions,” the AG said.
During spirited arguments from AMU which sought reconsideration of Supreme Court’s Azeez Basha judgment of 1967 declaring it to be a non-minority institution, attorney general R Venkataramani provided a brief light moment, while defending the 67-year-old ruling, by inadvertently referring to the judgment as ‘Ashish Basha’, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
This conversion of ‘Azeez’ into ‘Ashish’ by the AG escaped the attention of mercurial senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who representing AMU was seen repeatedly interrupting solicitor general Tushar Mehta. When Dhavan was arguing for AMU, interruptions by Mehta used to invite the former’s wrath. Dhavan’s pet dialogue was “the new practice in SC is to interrupt a lawyer even during proceedings before a seven-judge constitution bench”.
Arguing for AMU’s minority status, advocate M R Shamshad said the Basha judgment adopted an exclusionary approach and denied minority status to AMU just because it agreed for government recognition of its degrees through the AMU Act, 1920, and received financial aid from government.
“Even in context of a university, governments have established universities for different groups like tribals, women, depressed and backward classes etc. If that is so, why not a university for Muslims?” he asked.
The AG explained the meaning of ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ in context of the right conferred on minority communities relating to ‘choice’ of educational institutions.
“Unfettered freedom to establish educational institutions ‘of their choice’ does not extend to the grant of exemption from the obligation to abide by other constitutional demands and requirements, for example, the obligation to honour provisions relating to reservations, or matters relating to regulations of appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff and including general regulations relating to standards and quality of education,” Venkataramani said.
“The choice aspect of institutions does not exempt the minority from constitutionally sanctioned regulations or constitutional prescriptions which are themselves as important as the choice. As long as the state does not impinge on the choice and which the state cannot, Article 30 is intact,” he added.
“After coming into force of the Constitution, a minority community can claim protection under Article 30, it must first have legal competence to establish a particular class of institutions,” the AG said.
