The seven-judge bench dealing with the case on AMU minority status would continue hearing on January 23.
Mohammad Alamullah | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasised that Article 30 (1) does not intend to segregate minorities from other communities. The court also asserted that an educational institution can include individuals from other communities in its administration without compromising its minority status.
The court continued to hear arguments in the case involving the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the country’s premier institution of higher learning.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, presiding over the seven-judge bench, stated that the essence of Article 30 was to provide minorities with a choice in administering their institutions. “The object of Article 30 is not to ghettoise the minorities. So if you let other people associate with your institution, it doesn’t detract from your character as a minority institution,” he remarked.
The CJI further highlighted the importance of the word “choice” in Article 30 (1), emphasising that minorities enjoy a discretion to either self-administer their institutions or involve others. “Article 30 does not mandate that the administration has to be by the minority itself. What Article 30 contemplates and recognises is the right, mainly the right of choice, the discretion given to minorities to administer in a manner which they deem appropriate,” he said.
Chief Justice Chandrachud reiterated similar sentiments during earlier proceedings, clarifying that the involvement of non-minority individuals in some aspects of administration does not dilute the minority character of the institution. He affirmed that the choice lies with the minority community to decide on the extent to which they want to involve others in administration.
Responding to these observations, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the AMU Old Boys’ Association, pointed out the practical necessity of involving non-minorities in administration due to their expertise in certain areas.
The case, arising from a 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court, questions whether AMU, governed by the AMU Act 1920, can claim minority status. The seven-judge bench will also examine the validity of the 1967 Supreme Court judgment rejecting AMU’s minority status and the 1981 amendment conferring minority status.
Hearing will resume on January 23.
