Explained: Why Centre does not see Aligarh Muslim University as a minority institution

The Narendra Modi government has cleared its stance before the Supreme Court, stating that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot be categorized as a minority institution due to its inherent "national character." The proceedings centre around the protracted and contentious issue of AMU's minority status, a matter that has woven itself into the fabric of legal discussions for several decades.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Tuesday filed comprehensive written submissions, seeking to establish the foundational premise that AMU, by virtue of being declared an institution of national importance, inherently lacks the characteristics of a minority institution. Mehta underscored the historical significance of AMU, dating back to its founding in 1875, even asserting its national importance during the pre-independence era.

"The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is an institution of a national character," Mehta's submissions declared, emphasizing a survey of historical documents surrounding the university's establishment. The crux of the argument pivoted on the assertion that any institution deemed of national importance, especially in the context of the secular ethos of the nation and the Constitution, inherently falls outside the purview of being a minority institution.

Addressing the debates in the Constituent Assembly, Mehta argued that a university recognized and revered as an institution of national importance cannot be designated as a minority university. Despite the debates and discussions, the submissions contended that considering AMU as a minority institution would run counter to the university's educational 'national character,' irrespective of its administration by the minority at the time of inception.

Crucially, Mehta highlighted that AMU is not predominantly a Muslim university, as it is neither established nor administered by the minority community. He vehemently stressed that the university's character cannot be tethered to any specific religion or religious denomination. The legal thrust of Mehta's submissions rested on the premise that any university declared by the Constitution of India as of national importance is, by definition, excluded from being categorized as a minority institution.

The written submissions delved into the potential repercussions of declaring AMU a "minority institution." Notably, Mehta pointed out that a minority educational institution, as defined under section 3 of the Central Educational Institution (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, is exempt from implementing reservation policies. This exemption, if applied to AMU, would result in a separate admission procedure for the university, potentially yielding drastic consequences.

Emphasizing the scale and importance of AMU, Mehta argued that the exemption could have a "drastic" impact due to the university's extensive history, vast properties, and a substantial student body spanning various courses. The overarching theme of Mehta's submissions was that a national institute of such magnitude, like Aligarh Muslim University, should prioritize its secular origins and serve the broader interests of the nation.

Furthermore, the submissions referred to AMU's standing in national rankings, citing its ninth position among universities and autonomous institutions in India, as per the Ministry of Education's National Institutional Ranking Framework-2023. Additionally, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) graded the university as 'A.'

The legal saga surrounding AMU's minority status has deep historical roots, with a five-judge constitution bench ruling in 1967 that, as a central university, AMU cannot be considered a minority institution. However, the university regained its minority status through the AMU (Amendment) Act in 1981.

In 2006, the Allahabad High Court struck down provisions of the 1981 law granting AMU minority status, setting off a series of legal maneuvers. The Congress-led UPA government appealed against the High Court's decision, and the issue remained a contentious subject. The NDA government, led by the BJP, expressed its intention in 2016 to withdraw the UPA's appeal, citing the 1967 Supreme Court judgment.

The current legal proceedings are before a seven-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, which commenced hearings on Tuesday. The arguments remained inconclusive, with the proceedings set to resume on Wednesday.