AMU MINORITY STATUS UNDER CHALLANGE: ALAHABAD HC JUDGMENT AND TURNING POINT

In this lecture Prof. Faizan Mustafa moves forward in the series and focuses on a crucial phase in the Aligarh Muslim University controversy—the three significant judgments delivered by the Allahabad High Court in 2005, which directly questioned the minority character of the university.

He begins by situating this episode within the broader series. The first episode traced the historical evolution from 1869 to 1920. The second examined developments from 1920 to 2024. The third analyzed how the university lost its minority character through the 1968 Supreme Court judgment in Aziz Basha. Now, this lectures turns to the judicial developments in 2005.

The litigation began when students of Aligarh Muslim University approached the Allahabad High Court on 25 February 2005, challenging the university’s decision regarding reservation in postgraduate medical courses (MD/MS). The university had relied on constitutional jurisprudence, including judgments such as T.M.A. Pai Foundation and St. Stephen’s College, along with the constitutional position that minority institutions are exempt from certain reservation requirements.

Despite this, the High Court refused to grant an interim stay. The matter proceeded, and significant arguments were advanced before the Court. During the proceedings, an important question was raised: whether Muslims were a minority at the relevant time. The Court even directed the Census Commissioner to clarify this through an affidavit. It was argued that minorities are determined at the state level and that Muslims had consistently remained a minority, both nationally and in Uttar Pradesh, across all census data.

Another critical issue raised before the Court was whether there was an intention to establish a university. Evidence was presented to show that from the very beginning, including speeches of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and the draft plans prepared by Justice Mahmood, the intention was clearly to create a university and not merely a college.

When the matter came before the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice A. N. Ray, a significant and controversial observation was made—that a large population such as 15 crore Muslims could not be considered a minority unless there was a threat of extinction. This introduced a completely new and legally questionable standard, as established constitutional jurisprudence defines minorities in terms of numerical strength (less than 50%), not existential threat.

Despite reliance on Supreme Court precedents and constitutional provisions, the High Court persisted with this reasoning. The arguments emphasized that judicial discipline requires High Courts to follow binding precedents of the Supreme Court, but the Court continued to interpret minority status differently.

Turning to the judgments themselves, Faizan Mustafa highlights several key findings:

Justice Arun Tandon, in his October 2005 judgment, held that the right under Article 30 is available only to natural persons and not to juristic persons such as a university, which is a body corporate. This effectively meant that a university itself could not claim minority status. This reasoning, however, was not explicitly endorsed or deeply examined by the Division Bench.

He further held that Aligarh Muslim University was established by the 1920 Act of Parliament and not by Muslims. This finding aligned with the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Aziz Basha. Both Chief Justice A. N. Ray and Justice Ashok Bhushan broadly agreed with this conclusion.

Justice Tandon also treated the Aziz Basha judgment as binding not only on law but also on facts, thereby limiting the scope for reinterpretation. The Division Bench did not strongly contest this position, and all three judges ultimately upheld Aziz Basha as good law.

However, a significant divergence arose regarding the effect of the 1981 Amendment. Justice A. N. Ray observed that the amendment effectively overturned Aziz Basha, whereas Justice Arun Tandon held that the amendment did not alter the legal position and that Aziz Basha continued to prevail. The Division Bench ultimately concluded that wherever there is a conflict between the 1981 Amendment and Aziz Basha, the Supreme Court judgment would prevail.

Another important issue was the interpretation of Section 2(l) of the 1981 Amendment, which defines the university as an institution established by Muslims. The High Court acknowledged this definition but interpreted it narrowly, suggesting that it merely referred to the origin of MAO College rather than conferring minority status on the university.

Justice Tandon also introduced the argument that only “deemed universities” could claim minority status under Article 30 and not full-fledged universities created by statute. This interpretation was novel and lacked support in established constitutional jurisprudence.

He further suggested that fundamental rights could be subject to broader national interest considerations beyond the explicit restrictions mentioned in the Constitution. This proposition represents a significant departure from settled constitutional doctrine, where restrictions on fundamental rights are explicitly enumerated within the Constitution itself.

The judgments also examined whether the deletion of the word “established” from the preamble of the 1920 Act and the introduction of new provisions in 1981 were sufficient to restore minority status. The Division Bench held that these changes were insufficient, while also acknowledging the legislative intent behind the amendment.

Another controversial observation was that governmental control could be a determining factor in assessing minority character. This approach departs from established jurisprudence, which distinguishes between regulatory control and actual administration.

The High Court also raised questions about the reserve fund and suggested that the original Muslim character of the institution had diminished over time. However, statutory provisions clearly indicated that the reserve fund was not to be exhausted, and this reasoning was not thoroughly examined by all judges.

Ultimately, all three judgments reaffirmed the applicability of Aziz Basha and rejected the claim that Aligarh Muslim University was a minority institution, despite acknowledging various arguments and legislative developments pointing otherwise.

Following these judgments, the university approached the Supreme Court. The matter was admitted, and eventually referred to a seven-judge bench to decide the larger constitutional questions involved. This reference now forms the basis of the ongoing constitutional debate on the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University.

This episode highlights that the controversy is not merely about the status of a single institution, but also about deeper constitutional questions—particularly the interpretation of Article 30 and the extent of Parliament’s power to define and restore minority rights.

Disclaimer:

This blog presents the views of Faizan Mustafa based on his public lectures. Fairlex does not claim authorship of these ideas.