tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-246951252024-03-17T00:22:57.579+05:30Legal World and Childhood DreamsArticle, speeches by Yatindra Singh Chairman of the TrustKrishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.comBlogger21913tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24695125.post-26211461106907683662024-03-14T13:55:00.002+05:302024-03-16T13:26:57.057+05:30AMU Case - Fifth Point<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This post explains that the word 'minority' in Article 30 of the Constitution envisages electoral minority and not numerical minority.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiVwX8bYxh65GwPPeEjBPvSMptkM51QzjIaSdI-mF9xRxQESRxXEPc0_RFRY7eYIPi6DaDQX8VD5iSDmPHAfTgR4P0hWukprnX_k5Wr-0jS4hYO-q7T2pjVbQvFsIUEoYf6dGX8ivrcOMv7p4IItnFYHlbfIKSGJMY0Pd1ptb1HQZnbOSXzmE/s3000/Aqua%204G+_20150826_175956-EFFECTS.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1687" data-original-width="3000" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiVwX8bYxh65GwPPeEjBPvSMptkM51QzjIaSdI-mF9xRxQESRxXEPc0_RFRY7eYIPi6DaDQX8VD5iSDmPHAfTgR4P0hWukprnX_k5Wr-0jS4hYO-q7T2pjVbQvFsIUEoYf6dGX8ivrcOMv7p4IItnFYHlbfIKSGJMY0Pd1ptb1HQZnbOSXzmE/w400-h225/Aqua%204G+_20150826_175956-EFFECTS.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND MUSLIM RESERVATION</span></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 13.2px;"><a name="more"></a></span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><p style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-muslim-reservation-introduction.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Introduction</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/points-involved-in-case.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Points Involved in the Case</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-first-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Institution Should Be Established and Administered</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-second-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">AMU Established by the Principal Act</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-third-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">AMU Not Administered by Minority</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/03/amu-case-fourth-point.html">Legislature Can Not Reverse Decision</a>।। Article 30 - Electoral And Not Numerical Minority।</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">। </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-post-is-about-andre-weils.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Bourbaki & Zero</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif">।।</span></span></p></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: large;">Democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. Lord Acton in Essay on Freedom (1948, page 33) says, </span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">“Most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. “</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is the basic reason for giving rights to the minorities so that the majority may not trample on them. If this be the reason then the minority—not defined anywhere in the constitution—means electoral minority and not numerical minority. Though, the trend of this court is, towards numerical minority.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Muslim vote bank (but not other minority vote bank) plays important role in the elections. Their consolidation results into victory for the candidate. It (Muslim vote bank) is numerical minority but perhaps not electoral minority. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In Committee of Management Anuman Madarsa Noorul Islam v. State of UP 2007 SCC OnLine All 1043: 2007 (4) All LJ 370, a A single judge has held that Muslims are not minority in India. This part of the order has been set aside by the Division Bench in special appeal {2009 SCC OnLine All 786 State of UP v. Bahuri Alp on the ground that it was not necessary to decide it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Nevertheless, the point is there. The courts are not fully equipped to deal with such a question: a commission may be constituted to consider it. There is no proper foundation in this case. The court may mention it and leave it open to be decided in an appropriate case.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">#AMU #AligarhMuslimUniversity #MuslimReservation #Minority</span></p>Krishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24695125.post-54292607777283036442024-03-07T13:46:00.002+05:302024-03-08T11:08:24.508+05:30 AMU Case - Fourth Point<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This post explains that legislature may change a basis of a decision but cannot reverse it.</span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg/300px-Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="300" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg/300px-Glimpse_of_the_new_Parliament_Building%2C_in_New_Delhi.jpg" /></a></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND MUSLIM RESERVATION</span></div><p style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 13.2px;"><a name="more"></a></span></p><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><p style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-muslim-reservation-introduction.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Introduction</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/points-involved-in-case.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Points Involved in the Case</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-first-point.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Institution Should Be Established and Administered</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-second-point.html">AMU Established by the Principal Act</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-third-point.html">AMU Not Administered by Minority</a>।। Legislature Can Not Reverse Decision।। ।</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: medium;">। </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-post-is-about-andre-weils.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Bourbaki & Zero</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif">।।</span></span></p></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In reference to this point, the case of State of TN Vs State of Kerala 2014 (12) SCC 696 (the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case) is relevant. The facts of this case are as follows:</span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There was a dispute between State of TN (Tamilnadu) and State of Kerala (Kerala) regarding height of full reservoir level (FRL) of Mullaperiyar Dam (the Dam). Kerala wanted to keep it at 132 feet whereas Tamilnadu wanted it to increase to provide irrigation to its farmers. </span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> In Mullaperiyar Environment Protection Forum Vs Union of India 2006 (3) SCC 643 (the Mullaperiyar-Forum Case), the Supreme Court (SC) permitted the water level to be raised to 142 feet and after strengthening the work to the satisfaction of Central Water commission to (CWC); independent expert to the level of 152 feet (para 12). </span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">After the Mullaperiyar-Forum Case was decided, Kerala enacted the Kerala Irrigation and water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 (the 2006 Amendment) restricting the height of full reservoir level (FRL) of the Dam to 136 feet (para 14, 15). The question in the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case was whether the 2006 amendment was valid. </span></li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">After analysing the decisions of the Indian and foreign Courts the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case, the Constitutional bench summed up the Law as to when a legislation can nullify a Judgement of the competent Court in para 126 to 126.7. The relevant part is as follows: </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“126.5. The doctrine of separation of powers applies to the final judgments of the courts. The legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can, however, pass an amending Act to remedy the defects pointed out by a court of law or on coming to know of it aliunde. In other words, a court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">126.6. If the legislature has the power over the subject-matter and competence to make a validating law, it can at any time make such a validating law and make it retrospective. The validity of a validating law, therefore, depends upon whether the legislature possesses the competence which it claims over the subject-matter and whether in making the validation law it removes the defect which the courts had found in the existing law.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In paras 149 to 151 155 and 157 of the Mullaperiyar-Dam Case, the Court observed that in Mullaperiyar-Forum Case, it was recorded a finding of fact that height could be increased to 142 Feet and after strengthening it to 152 feet. This could not be set at naught by the legislature. It could only be altered by the Court on fresh facts regarding safety being brought to the knowledge of the court. The Court (para 228) restrained Kerala from interfering with Tamilnadu from increasing the level to 142 feet. In paragraph 157 the court observes:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The question whether or not the legislature has usurped the judicial power or enacted a law in breach of separation of powers principle would depend on facts of each case after considering the real effect of law on a judgment or a judicial proceeding. One of the tests for determining whether a judgment is nullified is to see whether the law and the judgment are inconsistent and irreconcilable so that both cannot stand together. In what we have already discussed above, it is abundantly clear that on the one hand there is a finding of fact determined by this Court on hearing the parties on the basis of the evidence/materials placed on record in the judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum [Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643] and on the other in the 2006 (Amendment) Act, the Kerala Legislature has declared the Dam being an endangered one and fixed the water level in the Dam at 136 ft. If the judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643 and the 2006 (Amendment) Act are placed side by side in so far as safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam for raising the water level from 136 ft to 142 ft is concerned, it is obvious that the judgment of this Court and the law enacted by the Kerala State Legislature cannot stand together and they are irreconcilable and inconsistent. The impugned law is a classic case of nullification of a judgment simpliciter, as in the judgment of this Court the question of the safety of the Dam was determined on the basis of materials placed before it and not on the interpretation of any existing law and there was no occasion for the legislature to amend the law by altering the basis on which the judgment was founded. When the impugned law is not a validation law, there is no question of the legislature removing the defect, as the Court has not found any vice in the existing law and declared such law to be bad.”</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The aforesaid Case was followed by another constitution bench decision of this Court In re Punjab Termination Agreement Act 2004 2017 (1) SCC 121. The Court (para 39) held:</span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Looking at the afore-stated legal position, in our opinion, the State of Punjab had exceeded its legislative power in proceeding to nullify the decree of this Court and therefore, the Punjab Act cannot be said to be a validly enacted legislation, as held by this Court in terms of the afore stated judgments.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In concurring Judgement, it was observed (para 48): </span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“From the above mentioned set-up under our Constitution, there is no difficulty in concluding that no Government, whether Central or State, can usurp the power of adjudicating disputes vested in the judiciary including High Courts and the Supreme Court. Further, as a corollary, the judgments and decrees which are the end product of exercise of judicial power cannot be set at naught by the process of legislative declaration in respect of facts and circumstances. As explained already in the main judgment, the situation is somewhat different when a competent legislature engages itself in the exercise of validating a law declared defective or invalid for reasons which are curable.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Case in hand is similar. In the Basha Case, a constitutional bench recorded a finding of fact that the university was not established by the minority (para 22, 23 25, 26). This was not on the interpretation of any provision of the Act but on the facts and circumstances of the case that the University came into existence by legislation. This is clear from the the following observations:</span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“23. It is true, as is clear from the 1920 Act, that the nucleus of the Aligarh University was the M.A.O. College, which was till then a teaching institution under the Allahabad University. The conversion of that college (if we may use that expression) into a university was however not by the Muslim minority; it took place by virtue of the 1920 Act which was passed by the Central legislature. There was no Aligarh University existing till the 1920 Act was passed. It was brought into being by the 1920 Act and must therefore be held to have been established by the Central Legislature which by passing the 1920 Act incorporated it. The fact that it was based on the M.A.O. College, would make no difference to the question as to who established the Aligarh University. The answer to our mind as to who established the Aligarh University is clear and that is that it was the Central Legislature by enacting the 1920 Act that established the said University. As we have said already, the Muslim minority could not establish a university whose degrees were bound to be recognised by Government as provided by Section 6 of 1920 Act: that one circumstance along with the fact that without the 1920 Act the University in the form that it had, could not come into existence shows clearly that the Aligarh University when it came into existence in 1920 was established by the Central Legislature by the 1920 Act. It may be that the 1920 Act was passed as a result of the efforts of the Muslim minority. But that does not mean that the Aligarh University when it came into being under the 1920 Act was established by the Muslim minority.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is finding on the circumstances and the fact that the University came into existence by an enactment. There is no change on this account. The Parliament cannot set at naught a valid decision of this court. The amendments to the preamble and section 2(l) of the Act are invalid.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">#AMU #AligarhMuslimUniversity #MuslimReservation #Legislature</span></p>Krishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24695125.post-82432988682056175772024-02-29T19:32:00.001+05:302024-02-29T19:32:50.515+05:30AMU Case - Third Point<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqBWFbkM9PxPYUdi8lWiOPMpXtIErEqXgpy72DpNLZJEw3YTgEOR770lOUfhPNiDsfwsfccXhmL6Dx7EYXcdgxxbtSP9rRcz6RRo9QdsXKXWKyzzVAPSnKEUNp_pMyNjeJeMM8FPM9RnpRyIByBQVqaFaYR4HuyZjj6SuOudvI14cWOBy9Luc/s200/Aligarh_Muslim_University_logo.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="199" data-original-width="200" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqBWFbkM9PxPYUdi8lWiOPMpXtIErEqXgpy72DpNLZJEw3YTgEOR770lOUfhPNiDsfwsfccXhmL6Dx7EYXcdgxxbtSP9rRcz6RRo9QdsXKXWKyzzVAPSnKEUNp_pMyNjeJeMM8FPM9RnpRyIByBQVqaFaYR4HuyZjj6SuOudvI14cWOBy9Luc/s1600/Aligarh_Muslim_University_logo.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">AMU - Logo - Wikipedia</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">This post explains that Aligarh Muslim University is not administered by a minority.</span></div><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: medium;">ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND MUSLIM RESERVATION</span></div><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;"><a name="more"></a></span></p><div><p style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #222222; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-muslim-reservation-introduction.html" style="color: #249fa3; text-decoration-line: none;">Introduction</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/points-involved-in-case.html">Points Involved in the Case</a>।। <a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/amu-case-first-point.html">Institution Should Be Established and Administered</a>।। AMU Established by the Principal Act।। AMU Not Administered by Minority।। ।</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #222222; font-size: medium;">। </span><a href="https://kvtrust.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-post-is-about-andre-weils.html" style="color: #249fa3; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; text-decoration-line: none;">Bourbaki & Zero</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="color: #222222; font-size: medium;">।।</span></p></div><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In order to claim rights under Article 30 (1), not only it has to be established but it has to be administered by the minority. Muslim Oriental College was being administered by the minority but after the Act, minority did not administer the University. Its administration was handed over to the government. It did not remain with the minority. This was also clear at the time of enactment. Hon’ble M Shafi while introducing the bill observed as follows (Combined Proceeding Volume-3 Pg 3033),</span></div><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“A glance at Section 6 (2), 17(5), 18 (5) and Statutes 8 (1), 10 (1) and 19 (1) of the Benares Hindu University Act will make it clear to Hon’ble members that the Visitor, i.e., the Lieutenant-governor of the United provinces, is the main agency of control in the Case of the Benares University. In the present Bill, in consonance with the central nature of the subject, much of that control is transferred to the Governor General in Council-an authority which, under the Government of India Act, will henceforward, include three Indian Members. Under the Benares Hindu University Act, all new Statutes or addition to Statutes or amendments or repeals to Statutes other than those providing for the instruction of Hindu students in Hindu religion, require the previous, approval of the Lieutenant Governor who may sanction, disallow or remit for further consideration, except Statutes affecting the constitution of the University authorities which require the previous sanction of the Governor-General in council: in this bill. That power is proposed to be vested in the Governor General in council. Moreover, the Governor-General in council will when in exercising the power so vested in him, have before him the opinion of the visiting Board which will include the Ministers one of whom will himself be in-charge of education, so that the Government of India will be in possession of the views of this popular authority when exercising their own powers in this connection. Similar arrangements are also proposed with reference to Ordinances. A glance at Section 6 (2), 17(5), 18 (5) and Statutes 8 (1), 10 (1) and 19 (1) of the Benares Hindu University Act will make it clear to Hon’ble members that the Visitor, i.e., the Lieutenant-governor of the United provinces, is the main agency of control in the Case of the Benares University. In the present Bill, in consonance with the central nature of the subject, much of that control is transferred to the Governor General in Council-an authority which, under the Government of India Act, will henceforward, include three Indian Members. Under the Benares Hindu University Act, all new Statutes or addition to Statutes or amendments or repeals to Statutes other than those providing for the instruction of Hindu students in Hindu religion, require the previous, approval of the Lieutenant Governor who may sanction, disallow or remit for further consideration, except Statutes affecting the constitution of the University authorities which require the previous sanction of the Governor-General in council: in this bill. That power is proposed to be vested in the Governor General in council. Moreover, the Governor-general in council will when in exercising the power so vested in him, have before him the opinion of the visiting Board which will include the Ministers one of whom will himself be incharge of education, so that the government of India will be in possession of the views of this popular authority when exercising their own powers in this connection. Similar arrangements are also proposed with reference to Ordinances.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Hon’ble Raja of Mahmudabad said ( Combined Proceeding Volume-3 Pg 3064)</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">“It may be permissible to say that ever since the first definite proposals for the University were made the whole controversy has mainly centred around two points; the extent of jurisdiction of the University and the extent of the Government control. About the former the Muslim community has felt compelled to accept the latest academic opinion that there is no room in future for an affiliating type of a university and that the best interests of education will be served by a local University. Regarding the latter, the community has reluctantly accepted the limitation of the control imposed by the Government.”</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This is also clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1920 Act. It is as follows (Combined Proceeding Volume-3 P-1 Pg 361):</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">“The Muslim University Association having requested the foundation of a University and certain fund and property being available to this end it is proposed to dissolve that Association and the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College Aligarh and to transfer the property of these societies to a new body called ‘’ the Aligarh Muslim University.’’ The present Bill is designed to incorporate this University, to indicate its functions, to create its governing body and to define their functions. It also secures to the University the assurance of a permanent endowment and to Government the necessary power of control. The University will be of the teaching and residential type. In accordance with the recommendation of the Calcutta University Commission, the University will not include intermediate classes. But the University will have power to establish and maintain Intermediate colleges and schools at Aligarh. The degrees corferred will be recognised by the Government. Special features of the University will be the imparting of Muslim religious education to Muslims and the inclusion of the Department of Islamic Studies. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The bill also provides for the making of Statutes and Regulation. The first Statutes are scheduled to the Bill and consist of those which may be regarded as fundamental for the inception of the scheme. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The general terms of the Bill and Statutes have at various times been discussed with representatives of the Muslim University Association.”</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This was also so held in the Basha case (para 27 to 29). It was despite the fact that at that time, there was a provision that ‘no person other than Muslim shall be member of the court’. The relevant part of the judgement in the Basha case is as follows:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“27. Nor do we think that the provisions of the Act can bear out the contention that it was the Muslim minority which was administering the Aligarh University, after it was brought into existence. It is true that the proviso to Section 23(1) of the 1920 Act said that “no person other than a Muslim shall be a member of the Court”, which was declared to be the supreme governing body of the Aligarh University and was to exercise all the powers of the University, not otherwise provided for by that Act. We have already referred to the fact that the Select Committee was not happy about this provision and only permitted it in the Act out of deference to the wishes of preponderating Muslim opinion.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">28. It appears from para 8 of the Schedule that even though the members of the Court had to be Muslims, the electorates were not exclusively Muslims. For example, sixty members of the Court had to be elected by persons who had made or would make donations of five hundred rupees and upwards to or for the purposes of the University. Some of these persons were and could be non-Muslims. Forty persons were to be elected by the Registered Graduates of the University, and some of the Registered Graduates were and could be non-Muslims, for the University was open to all persons of either sex and of whatever race, creed or class. Further fifteen members of the Court were to be elected by the Academic Council, the membership of which was not confined only to Muslims.<span style="text-align: left;"> </span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">29. Besides there were other bodies like the Executive Council and the Academic Council which were concerned with the administration of the Aligarh University and there was no provision in the constitution of these bodies which confined their members only to Muslims. It will thus be seen that besides the fact that the members of the Court had to be all Muslims, there was nothing in the Act to suggest that the administration of the Aligarh University was in the Muslim minority as such. Besides the above, we have already referred to Section 13 which showed how the Lord Rector, namely, the Governor-General had overriding powers over all matters relating to the administration of the University. Then there was Section 14 which gave certain over-riding powers to the Visiting Board. The Lord Rector was then the Viceroy and the Visiting Board consisted of the Governor of the United Provinces, the members of his Executive Council, the Ministers, one member nominated by the Governor and one member nominated by the Minister in charge of Education. These people were not necessarily Muslims and they had overriding powers over the administration of the University. Then reference may be made to Section 28(2)(c) which laid down that no new statute or amendment or repeal of an existing statute, made by the University, would have any validity until it had been approved by the Governor-General-in-Council who had power to sanction, disallow or remit it for further consideration. Same powers existed in the Governor-General-in-Council with respect to ordinances. Lastly reference may be made to Section 40, which gave power to the Governor-General-in-Council to remove any difficulty which might arise in the establishment of the University. These provisions in our opinion clearly show that the administration was also not vested in the Muslim minority; on the other hand it was vested in the statutory bodies created by the 1920 Act, and only in one of them, namely, the Court, there was a bar to the appointment of any one else except a Muslim, though even thne some of the electors for some of the members included non-Muslims. We are therefore of the opinion that the Aligarh University was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority and therefore there is no question of any amendment to the 1920 Act being unconstitutional under Article 30(1) for that Article does not apply at all to the Aligarh University.”</span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">At present the position is the same; except the proviso to section 23(1) of the Act requiring the members to be Muslims has been deleted. There are some other consequential changes as well. They are as follows:<br /></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: large;">In section 13 of the Act, Lord Rector has been replaced by the Visitor and the president is Visitor of the University. Under Section 13(2), he has the right to cause an inspection as well as inquiry. He can then advise the Vice-Chancellor to advise on the basis of such inspection and inquiry {S13(3)}. In case no action to his satisfaction is taken then he can issue direction that have to be complied with {S13(5)}. He can also annul any proceeding which is not in accordance with the Act, Statutes or ordinances {S13(6)}. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">The Court has power to frame Statutes, but they do not come into force unless approved by the Visitor {S28(6)}.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Ordinances are to be framed by the Executive Council, subject to some control by the Academic Council {S29(3) to (5)} but they can be suspended or disallowed by the Visitor {S29(6)}.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Regulations can be made by the authorities of the University, but they are under control of the executive Council {S31(3)}.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Every Statute, Ordinance, and regulation is also under control of the parliament as they are to be placed before it and both houses can annul or suggest modification in the same. They are to be given effect {S31(5)}.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">Annual reports are to be submitted to the Visitor and to the central Government and have to be laid before both Houses of the Parliament {S34(1)}. Same is the case with the Annual accounts and balance sheet {S35(4)}.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">A dispute between an employee or a student with the University has ultimately to be referred to the Tribunal consisting of one member by the employee or the student and one by the Executive council and chairman by the Visitor.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: large;">The teaching and non-teaching staff is to be appointed on the recommendation of the selection committee as defined by Statute 27.</span></li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thus, it is clear that AMU is not administered by a minority.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">#AMU #AligarhMuslimUniversity #MuslimReservation</span></p>Krishna Virendra Trust: कृष्णा वीरेन्द्र न्यासhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12083949503473789293noreply@blogger.com0