Arati Bhargava interviewed AMU vice chancellor Lt. Gen (Retd.) Zameer Uddin Shah over e-mail. Excerpts:
The Central government has expressed its intent to withdraw its appeal in the Supreme Court against the 2006 Allahabad high court judgement striking down AMU’s minority status. What’s your reaction?
I was shocked and disappointed when I learnt about attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi’s statement in the Supreme Court that the Central government doesn’t recognise AMU as a minority institution. Earlier on March 5, I had led an AMU delegation to meet prime minister Narendra Modi and we had agreed that preservation of the university’s minority status would remove all misgivings the Muslim community has against the present government. A fair deal for AMU will convince India’s Muslim community that the prime minister’s assurance of sab ka sath, sab ka vikas (development for all) aren’t hollow words.
Briefly, what is the historical backdrop of this controversy?
Between 1951-1965 two amendments to the AMU Act, 1920 were passed by Parliament which have affected the character of AMU. They were challenged in the Supreme Court by well-wishers of the university. In 1965, one Mr. Azeez Basha moved the Supreme Court against government interference in AMU affairs. His contention was that having been established by the Muslim community of India, AMU is entitled to the right of self-administration conferred upon minority promoted educational institutions.
In Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court surprisingly upheld the contention that AMU was not a minority institution because it had been “established” by an Act of British legislature and not by Syed Ahmad Khan and the Muslim community of India. At the time, AMU was not made a party to the case and was given no opportunity to place its viewpoint on record.
In my opinion the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Azeez Basha Case is flawed because the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College, promoted by Sir Syed and other members of the Muslim community in 1877, was converted into a university in the only manner a university could be brought into existence, viz, by invoking the exercise of the sovereign authority then ruling India. Without government recognition, AMU, as a body corporate, would be an unreal abstraction. The statute conferred a legal personality on the college and got the university going. It was the Muslim community that provided lands, buildings, colleges and an endowment of Rs.30 lakh. This Rs.30 lakh endowment was a precondition of the British government enacting the AMU Act, 1920 to convert MAOC into a university. So AMU was ‘established’ by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and the Muslim community.
To correct this injustice, Parliament enacted the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1981 on December 31, 1981. Section 3 (iii) defined AMU as “the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which originated as the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College, Aligarh, and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University.”
But in 2006 the Allahabad high court struck down the AMU (Amendment) Act, 1981 and upheld the logic of the Azeez Basha Case. What’s your comment?
It should be noted that a highly significant observation by Justices S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and B.R. Mishra of the Supreme Court questioned the Azeez Basha ruling and urged its “reconsideration by a larger bench” to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India. This observation was made on November 26, 1981, but that bench has not yet been constituted.
It’s also important to note that Parliament passed the AMU (Amendment) Act of 1981 to protect the minority character of AMU. This Act removed the basis on which the Supreme Court had delivered its judgement in the Azeez Basha Case. It declared that AMU was established by the Muslim community with retrospective effect.
Thirdly, the Allahabad high court’s ruling that Parliament cannot bestow minority status upon AMU is wrong. Parliament has the power to overrule the decision of any court, to re-enact, amend and repeal any statute, partially or fully.
Why is minority status important for AMU?
Several research studies including reports of the Sachar and Ranganath committees have observed that the socio-economic condition of the Muslim community in India is worse than of the historically deprived Dalit community in all spheres, especially education. Therefore I am confident the Dalit community is prepared to sacrifice reservations in two universities — AMU and JMI — for their more deprived Muslim brethren. AMU is not merely a university founded by the Muslims of India. It remains a potent symbol of their identity, an institution that inspires immense pride in the community. The government’s attitude towards AMU will showcase how minorities are treated in India.
Also read: AMU’s troubled legal history
