NEW DELHI: A day after saying the absence of Muslim majority in the administration of Aligarh Muslim University undercuts its claim to be a minority educational institution (MEI), Supreme Court on Thursday attempted to strike a balance by remarking that the intent of Article 30 of the Constitution was not to ghettoise minorities by insisting they had the upper hand in administration of the institution.
The explanation from a seven-judge bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Sharma came after AMU Old-Boys Association’s counsel Kapil Sibal made a spirited presentation about interpretations to be given to Art 30(1), which gives a special right to minority communities, both religious & linguistic, to establish and administer an educational institution of their choice. Sibal said a minority community may establish an educational institution but may not have the expertise to run it. “It can delegate the administration to members from other communities but that does not impact the minority status of the institute,” he said.
Sibal, Mehta spar over Chagla’s 1965 Parliament speech on AMU’s status
What was the understanding of the Congress-led Union government in 1965 about Aligarh Muslim University’s character – a non-denominational body or minority educational institution – when it amended the AMU Act, 1920, to shift the administrative powers from the ‘University Court’ to its executive council and ended compulsory religious instructions to Muslim students?
This became a sparring point between senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for AMU Old-Boys Association, and solicitor general Tushar Mehta before a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Sharma.
Interestingly, both cited the September 1965 speech in Parliament of then education minister M C Chagla, the celebrated chief justice of Bombay high court and who had refused then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s offer for Supreme Court judgeship and who, later, served as education minister.
Sibal cited the speech Chagla gave in September 3-6, 1965 in the backdrop of a war-like situation with Pakistan. Chagla had said, “There is an undeclared war. We should do everything in our power to maintain communal harmony. We should not say a word which will interfere with that harmony which exists, and which should continue to exist.” Sibal wished these words to reverberate in the present “intolerant” atmosphere.
Chagla had also said that the 1965 AMU (Amendment) Bill “will not in any way affect the special character of the University” and Sibal cited this to buttress his point that lawmakers had always considered AMU to be a minority institution. He backed it by narrating historical facts leading up to 1920 when the Muslim community collected Rs 30 lakh (Rs 500 crore at present value) to establish AMU.
Sibal further quoted Chagla: “It (AMU) should be the symbol of Muslim culture in the context of secular India. It should be an example to the rest of the world how different communities can live together in peace and harmony in our country… Aligarh should be strengthened and should become a modern progressive university, that it should be a shining light not only in India but abroad, of our great composite culture.”
Sibal asked, “Why should the government try to destroy the minority character of a university of national importance that has embodied the country’s composite culture? Why would the court rule that this is not a minority institution and destroy the century-old legacy.”
However, Mehta accused Sibal of quoting Chagla selectively and not placing Chagla’s entire speech before the court. He cited Chagla’s September 2, 1965, speech in Parliament in which he had said, “My submission to this House is that AMU has neither been established nor is being administered by the Muslim Community… Sir Syed Ahmed had asked the British government of those days to establish a university and the British government established the university. Therefore, the establishment of AMU was by the legislature and not by the community.”
“I say that this institution (AMU) was not established by the minority; nor is it being administered by the minority community. That is the legal position as far as Article 30 is concerned,” Chagla had said.
Sibal, who was the HRD minister in UPA government, wriggled out of the sticky situation by saying a minister’s (Chagla’s) contradictory statements is of no assistance to SC in determining whether AMU retained its minority status right from inception and whether SC’s five-judge bench erred by ruling in Azeez Basha case in 1967 upholding the 1951 and 1965 amendments to the AMU Act and ruling that the university was not a minority institution.
The explanation from a seven-judge bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Sharma came after AMU Old-Boys Association’s counsel Kapil Sibal made a spirited presentation about interpretations to be given to Art 30(1), which gives a special right to minority communities, both religious & linguistic, to establish and administer an educational institution of their choice. Sibal said a minority community may establish an educational institution but may not have the expertise to run it. “It can delegate the administration to members from other communities but that does not impact the minority status of the institute,” he said.
Sibal, Mehta spar over Chagla’s 1965 Parliament speech on AMU’s status
What was the understanding of the Congress-led Union government in 1965 about Aligarh Muslim University’s character – a non-denominational body or minority educational institution – when it amended the AMU Act, 1920, to shift the administrative powers from the ‘University Court’ to its executive council and ended compulsory religious instructions to Muslim students?
This became a sparring point between senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for AMU Old-Boys Association, and solicitor general Tushar Mehta before a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Sharma.
Interestingly, both cited the September 1965 speech in Parliament of then education minister M C Chagla, the celebrated chief justice of Bombay high court and who had refused then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s offer for Supreme Court judgeship and who, later, served as education minister.
Sibal cited the speech Chagla gave in September 3-6, 1965 in the backdrop of a war-like situation with Pakistan. Chagla had said, “There is an undeclared war. We should do everything in our power to maintain communal harmony. We should not say a word which will interfere with that harmony which exists, and which should continue to exist.” Sibal wished these words to reverberate in the present “intolerant” atmosphere.
Chagla had also said that the 1965 AMU (Amendment) Bill “will not in any way affect the special character of the University” and Sibal cited this to buttress his point that lawmakers had always considered AMU to be a minority institution. He backed it by narrating historical facts leading up to 1920 when the Muslim community collected Rs 30 lakh (Rs 500 crore at present value) to establish AMU.
Sibal further quoted Chagla: “It (AMU) should be the symbol of Muslim culture in the context of secular India. It should be an example to the rest of the world how different communities can live together in peace and harmony in our country… Aligarh should be strengthened and should become a modern progressive university, that it should be a shining light not only in India but abroad, of our great composite culture.”
Sibal asked, “Why should the government try to destroy the minority character of a university of national importance that has embodied the country’s composite culture? Why would the court rule that this is not a minority institution and destroy the century-old legacy.”
However, Mehta accused Sibal of quoting Chagla selectively and not placing Chagla’s entire speech before the court. He cited Chagla’s September 2, 1965, speech in Parliament in which he had said, “My submission to this House is that AMU has neither been established nor is being administered by the Muslim Community… Sir Syed Ahmed had asked the British government of those days to establish a university and the British government established the university. Therefore, the establishment of AMU was by the legislature and not by the community.”
“I say that this institution (AMU) was not established by the minority; nor is it being administered by the minority community. That is the legal position as far as Article 30 is concerned,” Chagla had said.
Sibal, who was the HRD minister in UPA government, wriggled out of the sticky situation by saying a minister’s (Chagla’s) contradictory statements is of no assistance to SC in determining whether AMU retained its minority status right from inception and whether SC’s five-judge bench erred by ruling in Azeez Basha case in 1967 upholding the 1951 and 1965 amendments to the AMU Act and ruling that the university was not a minority institution.
