The Supreme Court emphasized on Wednesday that education is a crucial source of cultural power, noting that a pre-Constitution institution is entitled to claim rights under Article 30 of the Constitution. This observation was made during the hearing of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status case by a seven-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. Article 30 addresses the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
The bench stated that any institution meeting the requirements of Article 30 has the right to claim it, regardless of whether it was established before or after the adoption of the Constitution. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, urged the bench not to interpret the AMU Act, 1920, in the context of Article 30, arguing that it was enacted before the existence of the Indian Constitution and the concept of minority rights. The Chief Justice remarked that the contention boils down to whether the university, established in 1920, can claim a denominational character after surrendering it.
The division bench observed that during the period of the 1920 Act, absolute control was in the hands of the British, who did not want any institution in India to become powerful enough to challenge imperial dominion. The Chief Justice noted the importance of education as a source of cultural power, both pre and post-independence. The bench clarified that claiming the right under Article 30 is not limited to institutions established after 1950.
The hearing also raised questions about non-Muslim appointments to leadership positions in AMU since 1920, and Mehta indicated that four non-Muslims were appointed as vice-chancellors or pro-vice chancellors. The bench inquired about the predominantly Muslim choice of chancellors, to which Mehta responded by questioning if the government appointing a particular community could change the character of the university.
The arguments will resume on January 30, and the AMU’s minority status has been a contentious legal issue for several decades, with the Supreme Court referring it to a seven-judge bench for adjudication in 2019.
Source: PTI
