Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 5]

CJI : anyway there is are challenge to the provisions of the Act , therefore we proceed on the provisions of the Act being valid.

SG: post constitution 81 amendment is not challenged

CJI: so we take the act as it stands and see its impact on the minority status...because if similar provision is to be made today would that take away the minority status of the institution

SG : it may , it may the present govt under the constitution cannot compel them...

CJI: the two test would this, which of these provisions are relatable to the overall regulatory powers of the State which even Article 30 allows and which of these provision go beyond the really regulatory provision which is agnostic to religion and destroy the minority character 

SG : even in terms of amending the statute they have no supremacy, the rector has full right to set it aside and reject it, they had only advisory function...the discretion is also not conferred

CJI: obviously it was a policy of the British govt. to not make this an absolutely autonomous institution, they were retaining some control

SG : absolute and predominate control that is my submission 

SG: the question is who is the ultimate decision-making authority in terms of administration

Khanna J : there are two ways to look, one is with whom the final power is vested; the other is day-to-day administration...the day-to-day functioning is done by people who are at the helm of affairs, Lord rector will be having numerous functions, as per your argument the ultimate authority is not...because this argument proceeds on the basis of the ones who are actually running the day to day administration...like in criminal the persons in charge of the administration can be prosecuted and not the one who is symbolic in charge

SG : even day to day administration was not in their hands

CJI: Mr Solicitor the argument on their side was this - that you can establish institutions of your choice and you have a constitutional discretion to administer it, but if you give that discretion by giving the administration to non-minority that does not detract your position under article 30 

SG submits that the visiting board of the AMU as per the 1920 Act had no Muslim; university was subordinate and subservient to a body of non-muslims

SG submitted that the law director of AMU as per the Act 1920 was the governor general

SG gives a recap- I had said that it was not established as a minority, now I'm on the question of administration as it stood in 1920, because that it the test that would apply.

SG Tushar Mehta resumes his arguments

SG : a propose the query raised by Justice Suryakant yesterday, both AMU and BHU used to get 1 lac each per year, sometimes increased to 2 lacs. AMU as on date gets 15lacs gross per year and also have self-generation of fees etc of 30-40 crores