The Central Government told the Constitution bench of 7 judges of the Supreme Court that the ‘national structure’ should be reflected in an institution of national importance.
Solicitor General Mehta said that even without reservation, about 70 to 80 percent of the students studying in AMU are Muslims. Mehta said that social justice will be a very decisive factor in deciding the case.
Chief Justice D.Y. Before the Constitution bench headed by Chandrachud, Solicitor General Mehta said that you have to keep in mind that it is almost an accepted position among the parties that even without reservation, 70 to 80 per cent of the students in AMU are Muslims.
The Solicitor General said, ‘I am not on religion, this is a very serious incident. Mehta has also presented his written arguments before the bench.
It says that a minority educational institution is not required to implement a reservation policy under Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (as amended in 2012).
The Constitution Bench said that the objective of the then government in introducing the amendment to the 1981 law was to recognize the historical facts. The bench further said that the then Union Minister said that it was to be recognized that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was established by the Muslims of India.
The Constitution Bench made this comment when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the Central Government, cited the debate in Parliament in 1981 on the Bill to amend the AMU Act 1920 to give minority status to this university.
was part of the election manifesto
Solicitor General Mehta said that in Parliament the then Social Welfare Minister said that ‘this was part of our election manifesto and I leave it at that…If Parliament is allowed to recognize the hundred years of history, the court will recognize the danger. Can. On this, Chief Justice Chandrachud said, ‘This is the privileged area of Parliament, we cannot control it.’ The Constitution Bench was conducting its sixth hearing on the petitions demanding restoration of minority status of AMU. Apart from Chief Justice Chandrachud, the Constitution bench also includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, Dipankar Dutta, Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma are also included.
being a minority is a political concept
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the defendants, told the bench that being a Muslim is one thing and being a minority is another. He said that ‘the question really before us is whether they are established and administered by a minority.
He said that the fact that they (Muslims) are a minority in UP today is that they were a minority at that relevant time, because whether they were a minority or not should be decided on the basis of today’s standards.
Senior advocate Dwivedi said that minority is a ‘political concept’. He said that at that time Muslims never considered themselves a minority but a ‘nation’.
He said history shows that when the AMU Act was passed in 1920, Muslims neither considered themselves a minority nor did the British Indian government classify them on the basis of sect.
Granting minority status to AMU after more than 100 years would jeopardize its reputation as an institution of national importance, especially when AMU had refused to challenge the 1967 Aziz Basha judgment of the Supreme Court for more than 40 years. Decision was taken, which declared it a non-minority institution.