NEW DELHI, 6 October 2005 — Within a day of Allahabad High Court quashing the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), teachers, students and leaders associated with the 130-year-old institution protested against the court order.
In a judgment with far-reaching implications, the court Tuesday quashed the central law that gave AMU its minority status and held as illegal the reservation of seats for Muslims in its post-graduate medical courses.
The court observed that the AMU Amendment Act, 1981, was unconstitutional and that the university is not a minority institution and, therefore, the notification issued by Union Human Resource Development Ministry on Feb. 25 this year, permitting AMU to reserve seats for Muslims in post-graduate medical courses is illegal.
Justice Arun Tandon said that approval given by the Academic Council of AMU to reserve 50 percent seats in post-graduate medical courses is illegal. Admissions made on the basis of this notification are also illegal, he added.
The court gave its verdict on a writ petition filed by Malay Shukla who challenged the AMU Amendment Act 1981 and the Feb. 25 quota notification.
Demonstrations were held yesterday in Aligarh for and against the court verdict. Displaying their protest against the court order, students blocked the Grand Trunk road in Aligarh. Authorities deployed Rapid Action Force to prevent any untoward incident.
Defending the reservation policy, AMU Vice Chancellor Naseem Ahmed said, “The purpose of granting 50 percent reservation for Muslim candidates was not to increase the percentage of Muslim students admitted to the university, but to restore the pan Indian character of the institution and raise the standard of education.”
On whether AMU would appeal against the order, he said: “Yes, that option is open before us.” A decision on this would be taken after receiving a copy of the judgment, he said.
The medical students, who have been admitted under the minority quota, should not be worried, the vice chancellor said.
The university intends to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court, AMU Registrar Faizan Mustafa said.
The AMU Teachers Association has also decided to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
National Commission for Minorities (NCM) sought government intervention to protect students’ interest in AMU. NCM chief Tarlochan Singh said: “The minority status of the institution is a legal matter. But there is a general perception that AMU is a minority institution.” “We’re trying our best to help those students who have already been admitted and who stand to lose due to the Allahabad High Court’s decision,” he said. The government must intervene to protect interests of these students, Singh said.
Tuesday’s verdict has drawn flak from Muslim leaders also who said the ruling of the single-judge bench would be challenged.
Joint convener of the All-India Aligarh Muslim University Action Committee Zaffaryab Jilani said no court, not even Parliament, has the power to infringe on the rights given to minorities by the Constitution.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), however, described the decision as a landmark verdict. “The government had committed a sin as it tried to convert the Aligarh Muslim University into an Aligarh Muslim Madrasa,” BJP Vice President Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said.
“The government should rather cancel its reservation order that aimed to damage the original equal opportunity foundations of the AMU. The government should desist from going for a Shahbano-type solution to nullify the judgment,” Naqvi said.
However, on the issue, the Congress said that the minority character of the AMU should be maintained and respected.
“Ever since the amendment in 1981, this institution has made notable contribution to the field of education and its minority character should be maintained and respected,” Congress spokesman Anand Sharma said.
By its Amendment Act of 1981, Parliament had attempted to overrule the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the Ajeez Basha case of 1968. The apex court had ruled that AMU is not an institution established by a minority group and that it is established under the Act passed by the Central Legislature.
Justice Tandon said Parliament has no power to overrule a judgment given by court and it can only remove the defects in law pointed out by the court in its judgment. According to the court, amending the Act of 1981 is, in fact, an attempt to overrule the aforesaid judgment and, therefore, it is unconstitutional.
