9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality of the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Acts of 1951 and 1965. 2. Violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 3. Violation of Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, 29, and 31 of the Constitution. 4. Establishment and administration of the Aligarh Muslim University. Detailed Analysis Constitutionality of the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Acts of 1951 and 1965 The petitions challenge the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Acts of 1951 and 1965, arguing that these amendments are unconstitutional. The primary argument is that these Acts infringe upon the rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Additionally, the amendments are claimed to violate Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, 29, and 31. Violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution The core argument revolves around Article 30(1), which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The petitioners contend that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was established by the Muslim minority, and thus, they have the right to administer it. The amendments are argued to abridge this right, making them ultra vires Article 30(1). The counter-argument by the Union of India is that AMU was established by the Government of India through the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, and not by the Muslim minority. Therefore, the Muslim minority cannot claim the right to administer the university under Article 30(1). The court agrees with this view, stating that the establishment of AMU was indeed by the Central Legislature through the 1920 Act, and not by the Muslim minority. Consequently, the amendments made by the 1951 and 1965 Acts do not violate Article 30(1) as the right to administer the university never vested in the Muslim minority. Violation of Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, 29, and 31 of the Constitution Article 14: The petitioners argue that the amendments bring about discrimination. However, the court finds no merit in this argument, stating that each university can have a different set-up as per legislative discretion, and there is no requirement for uniformity in university Acts. Article 19: The argument that the amendments deprive Muslims of their right to form associations or hold property is dismissed. The court clarifies that the amendments do not infringe upon these rights, as the property in question was vested in the university and not in the Muslim minority. Article 25: The court finds no connection between the amendments and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This argument is not seriously pressed by the petitioners. Article 26: The court assumes, for argument's sake, that educational institutions can be considered institutions for charitable purposes under Article 26(a). However, it reiterates that the right to maintain institutions is contingent upon having established them. Since the Muslim minority did not establish AMU, they cannot claim the right to maintain it under Article 26. Article 29: The amendments do not interfere with the right of the Muslim minority to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture. This argument is also not seriously pursued by the petitioners. Article 31: The court rejects the argument that the amendments deprive the Muslim minority of property, as the property was vested in the university by the 1920 Act. The Muslim minority had already surrendered any rights to the property when the university was established. Establishment and Administration of the Aligarh Muslim University The court delves into the historical context of AMU's establishment. It acknowledges the efforts of the Muslim community in founding the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which later became AMU. However, the transformation into a university was facilitated by the 1920 Act passed by the Central Legislature. The court concludes that AMU was established by the Central Legislature, not by the Muslim minority. Consequently, the Muslim minority cannot claim the right to administer the university under Article 30(1). The court also examines the administration of the university and finds that it was not vested in the Muslim minority. Various statutory bodies, including the Court, Executive Council, and Academic Council, were responsible for administration, with significant oversight by the Governor General and the Visiting Board. The amendments made by the 1951 and 1965 Acts, therefore, do not violate any constitutional provisions. Conclusion The court dismisses the petitions, holding that the Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Acts of 1951 and 1965 are constitutional. The amendments do not infringe upon the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, 29, and 31 of the Constitution. The petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
