Maintaining that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is a non-minority Central University, the Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that it has decided to withdraw the ten-year-old appeal filed by the then UPA Government against a decision of the Allahabad High Court refusing to hold the AMU to be a minority institution.
Appearing before a three-judge Bench in the Supreme Court, Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi sought eight weeks to file an affidavit stating the Government’s stand and pressing for withdrawal of the appeal lodged in 2006.
“I changed my mind two months ago,” Rohatgi said, appearing for the Centre before a Bench of Justices JS Khehar, Madan B lokur and C Nagappan. “I am distancing myself from the AMU,” he told the Bench, reiterating that the Central Government cannot be seen as identifying any one religion or group, defying the Constitutional ideal of secularism.
The Centre also drew strength from an earlier Supreme Court decision in S Azeez Basha vs Union of India, decided in 1967. The judgment held AMU to be a non-minority institution. Rohatgi said that the AMU was set up by a Central Act and in 1967, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the apex court in Azeez Basha case held it to be a “Central University” and not a minority institution.
In 1981 an amendment was introduced to accord the university minority status that was struck down as unconstitutional by the Allahabad High Court, leading to the present appeal.
“You cannot override the Azeez Basha judgment. Our stand is that according minority status to AMU would be contrary to the Azeez Basha decision that still holds good,” he said.
Several applications filed by interested parties supporting minority tag for AMU were also allowed to join the proceedings. The court directed that as and when Centre filed its affidavit, AMU can file its response.
Meanwhile, separate bench of the apex court asked Centre to respond on a petition challenging the appointment of AMU V-C Zaheer Uddin Shah, who is expected to retire in May next year.
The petition argued by advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged that UGC Regulations of 2010 required the V-C to be a “distinguished academician” with minimum 10 years teaching experience. Shah failed on both counts. Bhushan argued that UGC Regulations were held to be binding on central universities but an order issued by AMU V-C in November 2011 made UGC Regulations inoperative in AMU.